Skip to main content

Following on the heels of the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters has endorsed Lincoln Chafee. They write:

"LCV is proud endorse Lincoln Chafee for re-election to the U.S. Senate," said LCV Senior Vice President for Political Affairs Tony Massaro.  "Senator Chafee is a top environmental leader in Congress, fighting every day for the health, quality of life and pocketbooks of Rhode Island families, willing to stand up to big corporate polluters, and working tirelessly to protect our open spaces and wildlife for future generations.  We urge all Rhode Island voters to join us in supporting Senator Chafee's re-election."

According to their scorecard, Chafee scored a 90%. But if you ever wondered about how valuable such scorecards are, well, here's something to chew on:

LCV said this about Judge Janice Rogers Brown when she was nominated for an appelate judgeship by Bush:

The D.C. Circuit is critical to environmental protection because it is this court that is empowered to hear most cases challenging environmental rulings and regulations issued by the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies. Justice Brown has shown in her opinions and other writings that she is likely to strike down many of the laws and regulations that protect the public health and environment because they may impinge on what she views as the overriding rights of property.

Ouch. Sounds horrible. And it is.

And Chafee voted to confirm her. Yet, not surprisingly, that vote isn't on LCV's scorecard.

In fact, go down the list of Bush appointees for judgeships, and Chafee voted for just about all of them.

How about Alito?

President Bush's nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor poses a grave threat to our environment. Judge Samuel Alito's activist judicial record speaks to his hostility to the laws that govern our clean air, clean water, and public health.

Egads! And what did Chafee do? Yeah, yeah, he voted against Alito, but when it didn't matter. When it did, he voted for cloture. In effect, a vote for Alito.

So as Bush's judges continue their assault on the environment -- a decades-long assault that Chafee helped enable with his votes for those judges -- LCV and Sierra Club will only have themselves to blame.

Update: The Sierra Club's Carl Pope, just two weeks ago:

A Morally Bankrupt Bankruptcy Law
Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Last year, Congress made it harder for ordinary families that have been financially devastated by health problems to declare bankruptcy. But Congress also made it easier for multinational polluters that create some of that devastation to get out of cleaning up their mess. A special investigative report by the Sierra Club shows that one company, the American Smelting and Refining Company (Asarco), may be able to legally shift $500 million to $1 billion in cleanup responsibilities to taxpayers by reorganizing under the federal Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code.

Guess who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill? Lincoln Chafee. Didn't seem to matter when a week later his organization endorsed Chafee.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:06 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

  •  It's the old (6+ / 0-)

    single issue myopia in action. They've got heads with  brains, but they're shooting themselves in the foot.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:05:19 PM PDT

    •  that and... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ducktape, ChiTom

      this is the effect of the K St. project. In my last year on the hill more and more dem-oriented groups (labor most notably) were starting to make more of an effort to "reach out" to the other side.
      I think Chafee cut a deal with the eco-groups when he helped kill "clear" skies in committee last year.

      •  I wonder if it (0+ / 0-)

        was frustration at being locked out of things, so to hell with them that brung ya, you dance with whomever's got legs.  They made bargains to get anything done, and now have to pay up.

        Bad time for that bill to come due, though.  We have a realistic chance of taking one or both houses of congress, but as these endorsements trickle in from typically democratic groups, it looks bleaker and bleaker.

        -9.25, -7.54

        I have little use for ponies, but much use for beers.

        by Marc in KS on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:47:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  these environmentalists drive cars (0+ / 0-)

          and fly around the country to study and teach about problems! of course what plane flight is doing, they make worse.

          these people care more about a victory on a scorecard so they can use it to gain new members and  get larger donations from old ones. it is the power of greed in capitalistic society. greed dominates even environmental organizations in the USA. (well, maybe not http://earthfirst.org/...

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

          So here we see for the 3 days preceding September 11th a slightly negative value of temperature range with lots of contrails as normal. Then we have this sudden spike right here of the 3 day period. This reflects lack of clouds, lack of contrails, warmer days cooler nights, exactly what we expected but even larger than what we expected. So what this indicates is that during this 3 day period we had a sudden drop in Global Dimming contributed from airplanes.

          NARRATOR: During the grounding the temperature range jumped by over a degree Celsius. Travis had never seen anything like it before.

          DR DAVID TRAVIS: This was the largest temperature swing of this magnitude in the last thirty years.

          NARRATOR: If so much could happen in such a short time, removing just one form of pollution, then it suggests that the overall effect of Global Dimming on world temperatures could be huge.

          DR DAVID TRAVIS: The nine eleven study showed that if you remove a contributor to Global Dimming, jet contrails, just for a three day period, we see an immediate response of the surface of temperature. Do the same thing globally we might see a large scale increase in global warming.

          NARRATOR: This is the real sting in the tail. Solve the problem of Global Dimming and the world could get considerably hotter. And this is not just theory, it may already be happening. In Western Europe the steps we have taken to cut air pollution have started to bear fruit in a noticeable improvement in air quality and even a slight reduction in Global Dimming over the last few years. Yet at the same time, after decades in which they held steady, European temperatures have started rapidly to rise culminating in the savage summer of 2003.

          Forest fires devastated Portugal. Glaciers melted in the Alps. And in France people died by the thousand. Could this be the penalty of reducing Global Dimming without tackling the root cause of global warming?

          You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

          by Peter Pan on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:40:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Single issue fallacy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana, Harkov311

      This is the problem, alright.  I can see both these groups wanting to curry favor with the incumbent, who is [perhaps] likely to win, and will remember his supporters.  

      But there is that larger whole, and Kos points out how it involves Chaffee in decisions inimical to their/our environmental concerns.  (Reminds me of AARP and the Medicare drug bill.)  

      In response, I guess we do need to avoid "axis of evil" rhetoric and keep making the point to groups whose interests coincide with ours that their interests, the globe's interests are better served by a Congress not controlled by Republicans, even moderate ones.  Coalition-building is hard.

    •  part of it is Chafee's cult of personality (0+ / 0-)

      in Rhode Island, too ..

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

      by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:29:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I want a divorce!! (8+ / 0-)

    The DNC needs to set up a meeting with groups like NARAL, Sierra Club and LCV, daring them to go to the Republican Party and see how much of a hearing they would receive from THEM.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:06:21 PM PDT

    •  So you agree with Kos's dumb strategy then (0+ / 0-)

      Let's tell all the issue groups we don't need them.  I guess thumbing our nose at people will really help Democrats get elected.  

      The problem here is Kos (and you apparently) misunderstand the relationship here.  Issue groups will support whoever listens to them.  They are not devoted solely to a single party.  No surprise then that they don't just vote partyline for Dems.  If they did they'd be pissing away most of their effectiveness.  

      Kos needs to get over it.  It's getting old constantly posting this sort of bullshit.  Lincoln Chafee's family drives two Priuses, I guess he's probably an environmentalist, Republican or not.

      The problem is Kos thinks these groups "owe" the Democrats, and that's just not how things work.  This is a situation where an inclusive approach will work better than Kos's ill-advised adversarial one.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:12:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It this 'catch and release' type (8+ / 0-)

    voting, pioneered by Tom DeLay.

    If you've got enough votes, allow those members who are more vulnerable to vote "against" - it's still assured that the measure will pass and that member saves face with their local consitutency.  In that case, the member is not voting his conscience - he's just part of a conspiracy to thwart democracy.

    Proud member of the Angry Left.

    by JLFinch on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:07:02 PM PDT

  •  Wrong group to rip, Kos. (5+ / 0-)

    The LCV has been a fantastic conservation watchdog. Quite frankly I have to question why you would rip them for one small mistake, yet never praise them once for all the good they have done.

    I would like to see a bit more coverage of conservation issues here before we start bashing conservation groups who have done nothing but good things in this area.

    The LCV is a champion of the conservation movement. Your title is disrespectful to such a fine outfit.

    •  And yet, they hand out endorsements to GOP'ers. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jcwabbit, shpilk, bree, Marc in KS, rgdurst

      ...who turn around and vote to confirm judges and cabinet officials who are the sworn enemies of these very same organizations.

    •  They blew this one big time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, John DE, KenBee

      Sorry - but they've blown it here, and deserve to be called on it.  

      -Fred

      Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
      -3.13 -6.05

      by FredFred on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:16:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rumford? What does LCV have to do with Rumford? (0+ / 0-)

      This is a national organization butting its nose into a RI race, so why are they trying to pass themselves off as based in Rhode Island?

      Inconvenient News Doing my part to afflict the comfortable.

      by smintheus on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:20:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But this (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, John DE, CJnyc, rgdurst, KenBee

      and the mistake the Sierra Club made, is not a "small" mistake.  The stakes are huge.  It's cutting of a nose to spite a face, and it's stupid, short-term, myopic behavior.

      Somehow, sometime, they've got to realize that these little endorsements add up to a ravaging of the environment.  Chaffee in the senate is one more seat toward a Republican leadership, which means dems -- those who are much more likely to have environmental issues at heart -- are that much farther removed from actually being able to do anything.

      It just seems so short-sighted.

      -9.25, -7.54

      I have little use for ponies, but much use for beers.

      by Marc in KS on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:21:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A copy of the letter we sent to LCV 2 weeks ago. (19+ / 0-)

      (In which, if you were a member, they'd already announced that they were supporting Lincoln Chafee, as well as our favorite Joe Lieberman.)

      ---------------------
      April 10, 2006

      Dear Mr. Karpinski [= LCV President]:

      We have been major donors to your organization since 1997, and once met face to face with Wendy Summers, your chief development officer.  We have given at least $1000 each year this decade, including $5000 in 2004.

      Unfortunately, your recent actions regarding endorsements have made us unable to send further money until your endorsement policy changes.  In this era when the Republican Party has shown such huge contempt for the Constitution and rule of law, we expect organizations we support to adjust their endorsements accordingly.

      However, you haven’t met a New England republican you didn’t like!   It would be one thing if these people were genuinely better for the environment than their democratic opponents, but BY YOUR OWN YARDSTICK they are worse!  For example, Olympia Snowe:  her 70% rating is below the average for all Democrats, and is a good 20+ points below that of just about every Democrat in New England.  Joe Lieberman’s 70% is pathetic by the standards of his own party and region! (And he’s practically a Republican, anyway.) “Nonpartisan” should mean an honest assessment of who will be a better spokesperson for the environment; it should not mean affirmative action for Republicans and other lickers of Bush’s boots!

      Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee voted to put Sam Alito onto the Supreme Court.  Alito is a man who will be working to overturn decades of environmental law and endangers all that LCV stands for.

      Couldn’t you have at least stayed neutral in these races and put your money to help people who are unambiguously better than their opponents?

      Unfortunately, the facts make it obvious that you are part of the problem in Washington:  single-issue groups who line up behind incumbents who support your issues only when convenient.  This sort of ”Thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another?” mentality has caused progress to stop in Washington at a time when we are facing greater environmental threats.

      We remain politically engaged, and engaged on behalf of the environment, but from now on our money will go to groups who look at the larger picture, such as MoveOn, as well as to individuals such as Ned Lamont (“Real D”-CT Sen.) who won’t settle for the status quo.

      Please keep us on your list, however.  We don’t hold grudges, and if in 2008 your approach has changed we will support you as we have before.

      Sincerely,

      "Go Vegetarian" & "2.5 cats"

    •  I didn't realize groups had feelings (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joejoejoe

      This is politics and kos has his opinion (which I share). This is another example of a group that looks at one person while missig the big picture. Sure, Chafee throws a few bones, but he is still a cog in the larger GOP machine. And if you want to dismantle the machine, you have to stop supporting the smaller cogs.

      "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." - Ben Franklin

      by RandyMI on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:29:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  disagree (3+ / 0-)

        This is politics and kos has his opinion (which I share). This is another example of a group that looks at one person while missig the big picture

        LCV does not miss the big picture. They supported Chafee because in all honesty, there have been a few times where Chafee has come through big in terms of conservation votes on the floor.

        Again, let's hear some talk about actual conservation on this site before we start shredding real conservation groups.

        •  The big picture is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shpilk, Dyana, frankzappatista

          Republican control of the senate.  Right now, that's all there is.

          -9.25, -7.54

          I have little use for ponies, but much use for beers.

          by Marc in KS on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:51:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Chafee doesn't vote with his party (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ed in Montana

            ..on conservation.  The LCV goes by a candidates voting record.

            I understand that it is important to win control of the Senate. But I also understand that sometimes it's good to reward someone for doing what's right. And Chafee has earned his LCV endorsement.

            •  Head shaking (8+ / 0-)

              Look, this is a prettty saavy community, these arguments have ben hashed and rehashed.

              Will you address what people are saying to you on this?

              To wit- GOP control is bad for the environment and the conservation movement. Chafee votes for GOP control.

              Thus, Chafee is bad for the environment and the conservation movement.

              Whitehouse and/or Brown will  vote AT LEAST as well as Chaffee on roll call votes.

              He, Chafee, is called to account for his party.

              And that is fair.

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

              by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:57:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  you don't get it .. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee

              Chafee does vote, when push comes to shove, on issues that effect the budget against Progressive agenda -

              every.stinking.time.

              That trumps anything else he does.

              Anything. And .. it's wrong for these groups to make blanket endorsements in a general election before the primaries are even done.

              It's totally wrong.

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

              by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:39:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The reason they are doing it now (0+ / 0-)

                Is because they believe the Senate will still be in Republican hands after November.

                So they are fighting these battles today to secure primary wins of their preferred candidates among the Republicans.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:54:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Charge (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV, juls, jcwabbit, greenskeeper, CJnyc, KenBee
          Again, let's hear some talk about actual conservation on this site before we start shredding real conservation groups.

          I disagree with your premise, but even so, there are zillions of diaries and front-page posts devoted to environmental topics on this site. I mean, there's even a post on the environment (see DarkSyde's on hurricanes) on the front page right now. Yesterday, two diaries on cars dueled it out on the reco list, and there's a follow-up diary on the same subject on the reco list today - all by three different diarists.

          Jerome a Paris' constantly recommended series on oil. DarkSyde's innumerable posts on weather. Page's posts on nuclear topics. This site is just filled with environmental matters.

          This is a totally phony charge.

        •  The Sierra Club & LCV (0+ / 0-)

          ....are the sell-out wing of the environmental movement. Just ask David Brower's ghost why he walked away from them decades ago.

          •  that's false. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ed in Montana

            Not really much more you can say.

            •  True, but.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee

              Ok, clearly Sierra and LCV are excellent organizations that have done incredible work to protect the environment over the years.  Sure.

              But this decision on Chaffee is terrible and deserving of strong criticism.  No way around that.

              "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

              by tmendoza on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:13:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  David Brower (0+ / 0-)

            In his later years was almost as big a nutcase as Ralph Nader. Brower walked away from the Sierra Club about half a dozen times, always to come back to have a platform to rant from. He would get elected to the board of directors of the Club, do next to nothing at board meetings, and then get irritated at some Club position and resign in a huff. Only to run for his board seat in the next election. This behavior went on throughtout the 80s and 90s and was major embarassment for those of us that used to admire him.

        •  Here, here, Galatin! (0+ / 0-)

          Although I disagree with the Sierra club's endorsement of Chaffee, they arrived at the endorsement democratically, through local members in Rhode Island actually voting on it. So the Sierra Club should be more authoritarian and crush local members because Kos doesn't agree with their decisions?

          Kossacks should think twice before disparging local activists as morons and losers because they don't agree with a chapter in Crashing the Gate.

          •  I don;t get that? (0+ / 0-)

            You think the local can't be morons too?

            Why all this sacred cow business?

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

            by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:52:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The only sacred cow that I have (0+ / 0-)

              Is the democratic process, which the Sierra Club usually follows, and can often produce results that I personally disagree with.

              Armando, it seems to me that there are several strategies possible here.

              First you can continue to disparage both the local activists and the national organizations which made these endorsements, in the hope of embarrassing them into changing their ways. This sometimes works I guess, but these people are still our natural allies, and in my view, are not deserving of such treatment. These folks are not the likes of Joe Lieberman or Ralph Nader, at least not yet.

              Second, you can contact the Sierra Club's Executive Director Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's volunteer board members and the LCV Board members and ask them to reconsider their endorsements. A better approach perhaps, but in the case of the Club, a pretty authoritarian one. As a longtime grassroots activist, I tend to rankle at being told what to do locally by national boards who are frequently more divorced from the issues. And I am sure Rhode Island conservationists would have a similar reaction.

              Third you (we) can encourage kossacks in Rhode Island to join the Sierra Club's local chapter, and take action to ameliorate or reverse the endorsement. A difficult, but very democratic approach.

              Do conservation organizations always take postions that I agree with? By no means. But I feel that the democratic process that some groups use should be respected rather than disparged in the manner that I would only use for the neocons.

            •  What happened to big 'D' democracy? (0+ / 0-)

              I thought you used to be the one who claimed to believe in that?  

              In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

              by Asak on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:15:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  'throws a few bones' (0+ / 0-)

        AKA

        GOP Badge Polisher ..

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

        by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:36:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  One small mistake? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, KenBee

      One small mistake?  When Democrats need every seat they can get to win a majority?  When the effect of complete Republican control of both chambers is that there is no check on lawbreaking by Republican contributors?  When only a few Senate seats will swing the Senate?

      That's not a small mistake.  LCV is now irrelevant.  Their leadership is either on the take or incompetent.  They get no support from me.

      Support your neighborhood bats.

      by DelRPCV on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:32:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's crap (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walden, saccharin girl

        The LCV is hardly irrelevant. What's irrelevant is never talking conservation on this site, and then all of a sudden bashing long time allies who actually care about conservation.

        That's pathetic.

        LCV is an organization which gives scorecards to people who vote in a friendly way to the environment. It's an effective, easy to read and concise way of documenting actions instead of words. Chafee has been very helpful on conservation in a very tough time for democrats. LCV isn't obliged to endorse a specific party, but rather to endorse those who have voted for the environment during their terms in congress.

        But feel free to never talk conservation here, except when you want to rip apart good conservation groups.

        •  Allies of whom? (0+ / 0-)

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

          by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:39:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allies of all conservation groups (0+ / 0-)

            The LCV has been a fantastic resource from everything from outdoor writers, candidate information on voting records, action alerts that make  real difference, and just helpful to the conservation community in general. They have made a tremendous difference in voter education concerning conservation issues and candidate records.

            Why bash a long time, highly effective conservation group?  

            The one day I finally see a conservation story on the front page, it happens to shred the fantastic LCV.

            •  Ok (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rgdurst

              So you don;t mind if we Democrats think a little differently than you on this.

              The funny thing is you really don't get it - that Republicans in control is bad for the environment and for the conservation movement and that voting for Linc Chafee is voting for GOP control.

              the rest of the progressive worls has woken up.

              Sierra and LCV can do what they want and we have a right to call them idiots for it.

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

              by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:54:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well... (5+ / 0-)
                <blockquoteSo you don;t mind if we Democrats think a little differently than you on this.blockquote>

                I'm 100% Democrat. But I'm also not an emotional reactionary.

                The funny thing is you really don't get it - that Republicans in control is bad for the environment and for the conservation movement and that voting for Linc Chafee is voting for GOP control.

                You make a great point. There is no doubt that the Republicans have been trashing habitat. That line of thinking is hard to resist and I would like to see Chafee lose his seat to an equally friendly conservation minded Democrat if it meant the Senate in our favor.

                But please do those of us who actually follow conservation ( IE not you and Kos) a favor and refrain from trashing one of the best conservation groups we have - especially since you never put any conservation stories on the front page.

                Sierra and LCV can do what they want and we have a right to call them idiots for

                I 100% agree. But if you are going to call them idiots, how about once in awhile putting up their top issues? They deserve respect because they are the best conservation groups we have. Your site never discussing these groups except to rip them a new one looks foolish.

                •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joejoejoe

                  you are completely an emotional reactionary.

                  Your defense of Sierra and LCV is nothing but emotion.

                  Just read your comment to me after taking a deep breath.

                  Seriously, calm down.

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

                  by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:13:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  (insert random thought that gets cut off here...) (4+ / 0-)

                    I took a deep breath and read my comments. I still stand by them 100%.

                    I'm going to defend the Sierra Club and LCV. They are two of the best conservation groups we have. And I agree that taking back the House and Senate is the highest priority for conservation right now. You are 100% correct. But I also take offense to "putting LCV in the loser circle" - especially from a site that refuses to seriously talk conservation.

                    •  Highest priority (0+ / 0-)

                      I am now at a loss to understand your position.

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

                      by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:51:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You just admitted (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KenBee

                      "And I agree that taking back the House and Senate is the highest priority for conservation right now."

                      LCV just deliberately took action in complete controversion of this "highest priority."

                      If you really agree that this is the highest priority, then you cannot logically defend LCV.  And if you think an endorsement for the RI Dem candidate wouldn't have been prominently featured on the front page (something like "RI-Sen: LCV Gets It, Endorses Dem Nominee"), you're high.  They did it for Ciro, for example.

                      But *you* get it. And you come from a long line of it-getters.

                      by RepublicanTaliban on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 08:06:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Don't waste time arguing with Armando (0+ / 0-)

                      Seriously, you won't get anywhere.  Even when he's dead wrong he will never admit it.  

                      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

                      by Asak on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:19:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Except he's not wrong here (0+ / 0-)

                        And you know it . Nice try to make Armando the issue, heh.
                        The same way he was right the other day in the Sierra Club diary that had the same theme.
                         The 'environment' isn't going to mean radioactive shit to a to a crushed poisened tree if we don't get a Dem majority this fall.
                          The environment includes the spent DU rounds in Iraq, it may include radiation from tactical nukes, it includes the effects from the wasted time not spent doing anything positive about global warming, and on and on.The 'environment' will also include the effects of the judges' decisions made in the coming years, possibly avoided by having a Democratic majority in the Congress.
                          As also pointed out in the Sierra Club diary, the two Democratic candidates are just as good if not better on the environmental issues, and they help towards the crucial majority.
                          You're a fool to question anybody's environmental credentials here.
                        Since this is Kos's site, and he wrote a book about this very problem, you should read that if you're still confused. Try chapter 2, as it concerns this very candidate. Then come back with this bullshit.
                        And yes the LCV and Sierra Club are great, but they did an idiotic thing.
                           
                        One last time: these groups are idiotic to endorse a Republican for anything.
                        Without a Dem. majority these groups are just scavangers at the back door.

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

                        by KenBee on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:34:34 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If the Republicans are gonna keep control (0+ / 0-)

                          Then what?

                          Huh?

                          What if the Republicans ain't gonna lose control of the Senate?

                          Wouldn't supporting Chafee be a good idea then?

                          ...but not your own facts.

                          by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:58:08 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No (0+ / 0-)

                            Because a Democrat would be in that seat who supports the environment as much as Chafee.  With the information we have now, it makes far more sense to shoot for the Democratic majority than take the off chance that the GOP will throw Chafee some crumbs.

                          •  Can you read? (0+ / 0-)

                            What did I say?

                            I said, what if the Republicans are going to remain in the majority.

                            And your response?

                            That we should shoot for a Democratic majority!

                            Which, duh, I already TOLD you I support.

                            Really, can you READ? This ain't rocket science!

                            I TOO think that the Sierra Club might should fight for the chance at a Democratic majority.

                            But I believe that THEY are not doing so because THEY think that it will remain a Republican majority. And IF it does, then it is best for THEM to have Chafee in the seat.

                            Geesh.

                            I tried to dumb it down as much as I could in my previous post... 4 sentences.....with my main point emphasized twice in those 4 lines.

                            IF the Senate is going to remain in Republican control, THEN what is the best course of action for the Sierra Club and LCV?

                            Don't even bother answering though.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 03:15:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Understanding needs to go both ways (0+ / 0-)

                            OK, Since this is a dialogue and not a rant, let me try again so hopefully you might understand where I'm at as well.

                            Your premise is that the LCV likely believes supporting Chafee gives them a backup plan because they think Republicans will maintain a majority.

                            I addressed your hypothetical of a Republican majority by saying a few crumbs tossed to Chafee from the GOP would not be worth it (supporting Chafee). Ok?

                            My own take is since we don't have perfect information NOW about which party in fact will hold the majority, AND GIVEN THE CLOSENESS of the RI Senate race (I detail that in a response to you near the end of this thread.), it makes far more sense to shoot for the Democratic majority by supporting a pro-environment RI Dem.

                            Which I realize you agree with.  And the LCV and Sierra Club don't.  

                            And that's the shame of it.

                •  Who made them choose? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rgdurst, KenBee

                  Perhaps I have been living in a fantasy world but I have seen many pro-conservation blogs on this site. I think you are way out of line on that point. DailyKOS is not exactly a hotbed of rape the environment and screw the planet consumerism.

                  Nor do I think anyone is disputing that Sierra Club and LCV have done good work -- out in the field, in the classroom, PSA spots, etc. They are superb.

                  But they have dropped the ball on these endorsements. You know, it's not like they had to endorse anyone. They could have stayed out of the picture completely. Or they could have sent out communications stating the two candidates views on conservation issues and let the voters who are interested in conservation make the appropriate choice.

                  Personally I would have found it of value to have comparison information with which to make an informed choice. But they did not do that. Instead of treating us like intelligent equals able to weigh facts and choose the best alternative, they decided to tell us who they want us to vote for. And they gain absolutely nothing by it other than to infuriate many Democrats.
                     

                •  Never? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KenBee

                  Yeesh. You aren't even being honest here. The LCV was widely praised on this site when it endorsed Ciro Rodriguez.

                •  As someone who follows conservation.... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jcwabbit, shpilk, rgdurst, KenBee

                  ...count me in with Armando.  LCV and Sierra are in the the wrong here and deserve to be told that in very clear language.

                  20 years ago when you had plenty of influental conservation minded Republicans, and when there were a lot of very anti-environment conservative Democrats, the bipartisan approach made sense.  

                  But today, even the best Republicans vote worse than almost any Democrat, and, their influence on legislation is minimal.  They can vote in ways that let them assuage their conscience and keep their LCV/Sierra endorsements when the count doesn't matter, but on the votes that count, they are not there.  

                  When you have a competitive Democratic challenger who looks to be just as good on the evironment, in a very blue state, then endorsing Chaffee is tantamount to endorsing continued GOP control of the Senate, which is nuts if you care about pro-conservation outcomes.

            •  Conservation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rgdurst

              What on earth counts as a "conservation" story in your book? Does DarkSyde's post on hurricanes - which is on the front page right now - not count?

              •  talking about storms is not conservation. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ed in Montana

                "Conservation" is an activity in which interested parties discuss or act upon the worlds  natural habitat. An example would be dicussing public lands, and keeping their level of quality habitat intact and sustainable. An example of this would be discussing a bad activity planned for a national park, talking legislation that would effect a rare habitat on public or non public lands, or discussing sustainable water quality from a forested region.

                •  Conservation (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rgdurst

                  Read DarkSyde's post on hurricanes. It precisely talks about conserving land in the face of global warming and super-storms.

                  Or read Jerome's diaries about oil, which talk precisely about conserving oil and the need for a more enlightened energy policy.

                  I could go on all day. But if you are going to insist that your pet issue doesn't get discussed often enough around here, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then you will have to get to the back of a very long line.

                  •  Before Melvin and Darksyde begun posting here (0+ / 0-)

                    The environment and conservation took a back seat to most other discussions on this blog. That's OK with me, since I don't come here to disucss conservation issues all the time.

                    But I would tend to agree with Gallatin, that DKos takes more potshots at enviros than it praises them, and many Kossacks understanding of conservation politics is woefully lacking compared to other politcal issues.

                    •  Premise (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CJnyc, KenBee

                      The environment and conservation took a back seat to most other discussions on this blog. That's OK with me, since I don't come here to disucss conservation issues all the time.

                      Which is why I said I rejected Gallatin's premise in the first place. This is a horserace politics blog. It's not a requirement here or anywhere else that we devote equal time to all issues before we are permitted to make horserace judgments.

                      I would also say that Page and Meteor Blades have both long been major posters on the environment.

        •  That's crap? (0+ / 0-)

          Take a deep breath.

          Calm down.

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

          by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:49:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  LCV been on the wrong side of issues: See NAFTA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      I know for a fact that the LCV remained mum when the Clinton Adminsitration rammed NAFTA down the House & Senate back in 1993.

      Big mistake.

      I confronted Deb Callahan about this at an event in 1998, and all she did was nod along, like I was right. Totally disingenous.

      Now our environment (especially in the Rio Grande Valley) has gotten worse as a result of this free trade pact. The number of deaths in species of birds and fish have skyrocketed since it was approved, yet where was the LCV when environmentalists needed them? Go back and research it for yourself. A great place to start is Global Exchange's book, "Corporations Are Gonna Get Your Momma" edited by Kevin Danaher. There's a great chapter in there that lays out the environmental catastrophe that resulted from NAFTA.

      Don't count on the LCV to stand up for some of the major environmental issues that arise, especially the ones that receive little media attention. They've been known to dissapoint or ignore other corporate malfeasence at the expense of their access to politicans.

  •  I still think this is reverse psych strategizing (0+ / 0-)

    What hurts a moderate Republican candidate among his conservative "base", than endorsements by environmental groups?

    I think they're baiting the Laffey campaign to make the case that Chafee's too liberal for the state GOP.

    It's a win-win for them. If Chafee wins the primary, he's got a pretty good shot at the general no matter what they do, and if he wins that they'll have some new leverage on him for the next term. If Chafee loses the primary (which I have to imagine seems like the best outcome), then they can simply switch their endorsement to Whitehouse or whoever gets the D nod--and just maybe, they will have had a hand in it, by turning off conservative voters to Chafee.

    •  I don't see that as win-win (0+ / 0-)

      The way I see it, Chafee does a lot of harm to the environment with his votes, regardless of how LCV grades him. If he loses the primary and Laffey somehow manages to Diebold the election, he'll be even worse; nearly as bad, if Chafee survives the primary, the LCV endorsement may convince some gullible centrists with an interest in the environment to vote for him instead of the Dem candidate, when they ought to be voting to put a real environmentalist (and the only major party that gives a damn about the environment) in power.

      No, the only possible win for LCV is a new Democratic senator.

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

      by wiscmass on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  PLus (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wiscmass

        This endorsement comes at a time when Chafee's campaign is actually asking RI Democrats to disaffiliate from their party in order to support Laffey in the Repub primary.

        Btw I can't imagine Laffey even being able to Diebold the election - the polls are not close enough.

  •  Single Issue Groups (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, joejoejoe, shpilk, homo neurotic

    are on their own.  

    I quote Paulie Walnuts: "How much more betrayal can I take?"

    •  Caveat (0+ / 0-)

      I find myself frustrated by single issue groups, too.  My daughter & her husband are dedicated Greens, and will most likely vote that way regardless of whether it serves to keep conservatives in power.  (Fortunately, they live in Maryland, which is probably safer.)

      But their argument is an awful lot like Crashing the Gate, as I understand it.  They are tired of the Democratic party's compromise and waffling.  We need to be careful not to further splinter the opposition.

      I wish that Kos would discuss how this diary relates to his larger strategy.

    •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

      I never considered the environment to be a single issue before coming here. But that's just me.

  •  Please let this be reverse psychology... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, KenBee

    ... so hopefully any Dems who change registration to Republican will do so to vote for Laffey (anyone actually going to do this?)  And Laffey can then blast Chafee for being endorsed by all sorts of liberal interest groups like NARAL, Sierra Club, LCV.  That will keep the Rethug base voting for Laffey.  Then we get Laffey in the general and beat him handily.

    I know this isn't the case, I know that NARAL, LCV, and Sierra club just blew it (and NARAL did so knowingly and willingly to thumb the Democrats in the eye, whereas LCV and Sierra club probably just don't get it).  But in my daydream world things are different...

    -Fred

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
    -3.13 -6.05

    by FredFred on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:17:52 PM PDT

  •  This is what you get (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV

    when people have to drink polluted water.

    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 Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:23:12 PM PDT

  •  The Sierra Club's affinity CC is with MBNA (7+ / 0-)

    That's right, your Sierra Club VISA card is with MBNA, the chief cheerleader for Bankruptcy deform.

    And people wonder why politicans don't take the environmental lobby seriously.

  •  Last weekend in October (0+ / 0-)

    I will be with my wife in Rhode Island as she attends a Librarian convention and I find myself with 3 days of nothing to do.  Any ideas on what I should do?

    Blue is the most popular color

    by jalapeno on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:35:53 PM PDT

    •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

      I went to HS in Narragansett. It's a beautiful beach community. There's great restaurants and that time of year the crowds are thin. Right over the border in CT is a placed called Foxwoods (an Indian Casino) where I lost many a paycheck at the blackjack tables. Providence is nice now (it wasn't back in the '80s) so you could check that out. But whatever you do, make sure you eat a grinder, some quahogs and order a coffee milk shake.

    •  some thoughts (0+ / 0-)

      Do some wine tasting and a picnic at Sakonnet Vinyards in Little Compton (stop at The Provender (gourmet deli) at Tiverton 4 Corners on the way)

      You still might be able to catch a sail in Newport depending on how early in Oct.  Ocean Drive is beautiful.

      Explore the Italian restaurants around Atwells Avenue in Providence.

      Take a trip to Galilee (a working fishing village) and Pt. Judith and grab some clam cakes and chowder at George's.  Drive down Ocean Road in Narragansett and stop at Hazard Ave to climb the rocks and check out the vista.

  •  I am so fucking sick of being told (0+ / 0-)

    that a vote for cloture was a vote for Alito.  

    "Nation, this Friday...you may free ball it." Stephen Colbert

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:36:20 PM PDT

  •  Chafee's vote on cloture of the Banruptcy Bill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, KenBee

    link.

    Morally bankrupt?

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

    by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:37:32 PM PDT

  •  The LCV's Board of Directors (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, StuartZ, rgdurst

    As listed on their website:

    Bill Roberts, Chair
    Beldon Fund

    John H. Adams
    Natural Resources Defense Council

    Marcia Aronoff
    Environmental Defense

    Brent Blackwelder (honorary)
    Friends of the Earth

    Everett (Brownie) Carson
    Natural Resources Council of Maine

    John (Jay) A. Harris
    Changing Horizons Fund

    Rampa R. Hormel, Vice Chair
    Global Environment Project Institute

    John Hunting (honorary)
    Beldon Fund

    Tom Kiernan
    National Parks Conservation Association

    Martha Marks

    Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America)

    William H. Meadows III
    The Wilderness Society

    Scott A. Nathan
    Baupost Group

    John D. Podesta
    Center for American Progress

    Lana Pollack

    Michigan Environmental Council

    Larry Rockefeller
    American Conservation Association

    Theodore Roosevelt, IV (honorary Chair)
    Lehman Brothers, Inc

    Donald K. Ross
    Rockefeller Family & Associates

    Rodger O. Schlickeisen, Treasurer
    Defenders of Wildlife

    Peggy Shepard
    West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.

    Ed Zuckerman, Secretary
    Federation of State Conservation Voter Leagues

    If you know anyone on this list, please contact them and tell them that the LCV did the wrong thing in endorsing Lincoln Chafee.

  •  Good points on all sides... (6+ / 0-)

    ...including these - but it's pointless to discuss this in a vacuum, so to speak. The Republican Party leadership is in the sixth year of an all-out assault on the environment, from giving away our public lands to dismantling toxics regulation to destroying the ESA, Clean Water, Superfund, etc. Not really a time for compromise. Seize this issue and make it a Democratic one...like-minded Republicans are welcome to join the march, but not on their terms.

    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 Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:41:01 PM PDT

  •  The problem with single issue groups: myopia (9+ / 0-)

    And the problem with myopia is that it always leads to being bitten by the Law of Unintended Consequences (and Connections).

    Unable to look past the "no" vote on Alito, they don't see the failure to vote against cloture. They create their "scorecards" without really weighing just how important to their overall agenda the individual votes are.

    The greatest problem of all, I personally think, is that there is a time to be "non-partisan," and a time to recognize that if a particular party stays in power, your entire agenda is fucked, no matter what you may think of the individuals.

    It's hard coming to that point -- I know, because it was hard for me to get there. I was proud of being an independent who voted the man, not the party. But then, as the Republicans drove out all of the moderates, I found I was voting more and more ... and then, entirely ... for the Democrats.

    And then I finally realized that it didn't matter if I admired an individual personally -- as long as the bloody-handed corrupt wingnuts were in control of the Republican Party, any vote for any  Republican simply empowered the wingnuts.

    And thus, I find myself a partisan. Not out of choice, but because I have no choice.

  •  It could be a more forward looking strategy... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana

    ...to try and promote the cause of environmentalism across party lines.  Think of it, this climate change business is bigger than all of us, bigger than petty left-right politics.  Yes, it's kind of a bonehead move since this Republican caucus puts greed above any environmental consideration, but I think the LCV is trying to be more forward looking and promote their cause within the conservative party. It is possible, just look at the new leader of the Tories in the UK

    However, it is kind of a stupid move since Chafee is not really well-liked among the right wing lunatic fringe that tends to have alot of influence in the republican party these days... A better strategy by the LCV would be to promote a conservative candidate in a deep red state where dems would not have much of a chance at winning.

    •  you win the medal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana, Provgressive

      could be a more forward looking strategy... (0 / 0)
      ...to try and promote the cause of environmentalism across party lines.

      Bingo.

      •  Snort (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rgdurst, Provgressive

        Yes, that's a forward looking startegy all right. Have you been living in the United States for the past 10 years?

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

        by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:52:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (4+ / 0-)

          it's a far more effective strategy to become a part of the democratic party, you know, the party that isn't in power and given their blundering may not regain power even given the gigantic bungling by the GOP.  Yes, to attempt to curry favor with the party in power with particular representitives that have bucked their leadership at times, now that'd be unbelievably stupid.

          While I want more than anything to have a democratic senate and house (and white house), hedging your bets in the likely scenario that the dems win only one or neither, seems like common sense.  Browbeating your normal allies because of this, sounds like stupidity.

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

          by bill in wa on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:04:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes Linc Chafee (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shpilk

            is a powerful man.

            Sheesh.

            Who are my allies? Environmentalists?

            So me, a Dem,l browbeating environmentalists for endiorsing our opponents is STUPID?

            wow!

            You LCV and Sierra fans are just freaks.

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

            by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:14:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  hmm.. (2+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              slouise217, saccharin girl
              Hidden by:
              Mister Gloom

              So in your world being a Senator isn't powerful?  If he isn't why are you even bothering?  Why all the bluster?  Do you normally get all worked up over something so trivial?

              Sheesh.

              Environmentalists I suppose aren't your allies but they tend to be pretty reliable democratic votes even when groups go out of their way to endorse the enemy.    

              And no, browbeating an environmental organization for playing politics in a political world, is stupid.  I may not agree with their calculation (assuming it is such) but I'm not exactly willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.  

              And big deal, you're a Democrat (so am I), that an $3.00 will get you a coffee.

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

              by bill in wa on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:29:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  interesting. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlanF, saccharin girl

              You LCV and Sierra fans are just freaks.

              Take a deep breath.

            •  Not again (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ed in Montana, AlanF

              Just a mild request to Armando --
              You've made your point....just as you did last week on the Sierra Club front page item, and the diaries.

              Is it really necessary to post a dozen or more times on a single thread just so you can demonstrate that you are right and others are wrong?

              I happen to see both sides of this one...an endorsement of Chafee is very problematic for Dems retaking the Senate and thus for the good of environmental causes.  But single issue groups (like LCV and Sierra Club) are rewarding a Republican politician who bucked his own party in some pretty major ways in the last couple of years  -- and who currently is the only thing standing between the U.S.A and substantial repeal of the Endangered Species Act (since he has stalled Senate action on a bill that would otherwise provide a vehicle for a House-Senate conference rewrite dictated by Rep. Pombo based on the House bill.  And by joining with the Dems he blocked "Clear Skies".

              So...I know you disagree, and so does Kos...and you've been clear as to why the view I just summarized is wrongheaded.  But please, please, please....say it once or twice or four or five times...and then let the thread alone.  Reading a thread with multiple commenters is illuminating....reading a thread with a persistent commenter is just tedious.

            •  As you said above Armando (0+ / 0-)

              Calm down.

              •  Calm down Ed! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ed in Montana

                I know you are emotionally attached to these organizations but try to be rational.

                You are getting unhinged . . .

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

                by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:49:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am emotionally attached (0+ / 0-)

                  To the democratic process, not necessarily to the organization, although I have been a Sierra Club member for 37 years. If I discovered that the Chaffee endorsement was forced on the local Rhode Island chapter, I would have no democratic process to defend.

                  We have been in a similar situation over the last twenty years with endorsements for Senator Max Baucus (D-lite at times, MT). Early in his career the local Club enthusiastically supported Baucus. But as he grew more conservative and uncommunicative with conservationists, local people were less willing to work actively for him.  The national Club would call and ask when we were going to endorse, and this would set off much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth. To the Club's credit, they never told us what we had to do, but allowed local folks to vote on the endorsement.

                  It should not be too much for kossacks to disagree with the endorsement and to respect the democratic process in this case. Perhaps we can discuss this further at YearlyKos, under the topic; does overriding a democratic process provide a means to a good end?

                  •  How does this have anything to do (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Armando

                    with the 'democratic process'? That the central Command 'let' them do it? Sounds like a weaselly excuse for a stupid move. That there are 33% Reepers in the Sierra club chapter..good reason not to endorse anybody right there.
                      Second, you said all the same things the other day, and just like the other day, yes, thank you, that's interesting whether it's a 'democratic' organization or not ( for those who can afford it) but so what to the main point?
                      The main point is the election of a Democratic majority this fall.

                    These groups should have not endorsed. If they endorsed it should have been for the primary only. They can weasel out, but it won't look good, so they probably won't. ugh.

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

                    by KenBee on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:52:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  A Democratic Senate and House... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee, TheBookPolice

            ...will have an effect far beyond simply enabling some legislative acts and safeguarding others. It'll restore the investigational/oversight/agenda-setting functions of Congress that can either bring key issues to the fore, or make them seem to disappear off the face of the earth, or at least the MSM. Nothing is more important than restoring the two-party system asap.

            "...given their blundering may not regain power.." and  "...hedging your bets in the likely scenario..." sounds like you're already resigned to defeat. Cheer up (Bush at 32%).

            http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...

            Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

            by adios on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:15:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This pretty much nails it. (0+ / 0-)

            Well said.

        •  some people operate in a vacuum apparently (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando, KenBee

          .. it's absurd on it's face that these orgnizations are coming to support candidates in the general election before they even know the challenger is ..

          It reeks to high heaven.

          Chafee's votes for Bush appointees have weakened the agenda of every environment issue that matters.

          Chafee's votes for Bush policies gurantee that there is no money for any of the policies we need to protect our citizens from being poisoned in the name of profits.

          Meanwhile - Chafee gets to polish his little $1.19 'Environmentally Friendly Republican' badge, that he got from Wal-Mart in the discount bin. Voting, when it's safe to do so, for bills he knows will never make it, mouthing off platitiudes about how 'responsible' he is.

          Snowe, Collins, Sununu, Gregg .. the whole GOP Senatorial NE contingent does it.

          It makes me sick.

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

          by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:50:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Money (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCFD Rudi, DelRPCV, jcwabbit, shpilk

    This is the same as with NARAL, etc...

    All of these groups have self-deluding Republicans as major donors. If they don't see some "Moderate" Republican endorsements, they turn off the donor tap and accuse the Directors of moving from the "issue" to being anti-Republican. These are the sort of heavy money hitters that talk to the leadership directly, and can hurt the cash flow.

    So they throw them what they consider to be "low risk" Rep endorsements to keep the cash rolling in.

    That's all that this is about.

  •  LCV, Sierra Club, NARAL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    Boy, has my respect for all three fallen in the last year or so.  I still admire their causes, but talk about stoooopid decisions.

    Looks like it's up to us to fight the smart fight for the environment and choice.

    •  They Are Not Their Causes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV

      Bear in mind, as others notably Al Gore have pointed out, that these organizations are run like corporations. What they sell are feelings of self-satisfaction, and Republicans are among their customers.

      9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

      by NewDirection on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:02:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, any proof to your claims? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana

        That would be excellent.

        •  Okay.... (0+ / 0-)

          ....A lot of Republicans give to environmental charities. You'll have to take my word for that. It should be obvious that the clean division on issues and interests along party lines that is implied these days is bogus.

          It is my feeling that any environmental charity that sends my a cord of wood worth of junkmail after I give online, has placed too much priority on perpetuating its own bureaucracy. I also believe that giving money here and there to (the mellower) environmental advocacy groups, while a good thing, is small substitute in these times for personal lifestyle adjustments and business choices, and that it is often done in lieu of these. I am my own reference for my own feelings and determinations: You have the same evidence before you.

          Al Gore made those comments about charities in general duplicating efforts due to executive ego. I'm not sure of his wording, but it's an observable issue. And his comments are out there somewhere; no I'm not going to run around tracking it down. If you are interested you can easily do so.

          Now as to the title of my comment, "They are not their causes," it's the same as the fact that the Democratic Party and its myriad representatives are not wholly the true face of progressives.

          9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

          by NewDirection on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:07:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Don't Confuse Them With Environmentalists (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, Marc in KS, ChiTom

    These organizations are cash cows, corporations onto themselves. And in recent years there have also been rumblings that some had been taken over by Republicans.

    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

    by NewDirection on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:00:17 PM PDT

  •  HRC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, Garden Liberally

    This is why I stopped supporting the Human Rights Campaign. They have an active campaign for donations for Chafee and I'll be damned if I am going to pay one red cent to help keep a Republican Majority.

  •  I've always been a fan of the NRDC myself (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk

    NRDC = National Resources Defense Council

    http://www.nrdc.org/

  •  Agree or disagree, let them know what you think (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm wondering to what extent (0+ / 0-)

    the single issue groups in New England are beholden to wealthy moderate republican donors.

    Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

    by brainwave on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:43:21 PM PDT

  •  Shocked (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlanF

    So Kos thinks it is actually important how a Senator votes?

    Funny, he didn't used to think this way.  When defending Melissa Bean (a Dem, of course) he didn't bring up her vote for the bankruptcy bill . . . or the Terry Schiavo-Bill Frist is now your doctor bill . . . or the estate tax bill . . . or CAFTA . . . or her vote for the Sensenbrenner immigration bill.

    But then again, she's a Democrat. (Or at least she tells her constituents she is.)

  •  sick, sick, sick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    if the democrats don't go after the low hanging fruit---chafee, snowe---what are they telling us and if groups that supposedly are concerned for the environment are satisfied with the meaningless half assed support of these turd "moderate" republicans they might as well join the next whale hunt....

  •  well, that seals it for me (0+ / 0-)

    LCV is added to the list of "used to send money to".

    My letter to them, in a nutshell

    "You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem"

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

    by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:12:23 PM PDT

  •  A fairer diary than last week's diary on Chafee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk

    Last week, Kos posted a story from a reporter in Rhode Island who mentioned Chafee's 20% rating that the Sierra Club gave him in 2004.

    Problem was, that rating was an anomaly in the environmental record of Chafee, yet because it was presented, and then misinterpreted by many posters here, it quickly became one of the main talking points on the diary - that the Sierra Club messed up because they were supporting a guy who only had a 20% positive rating on environmental issues. But they were NOT supporting a weak environmentalist who only had a 20% rating. He had one bad year in their ratings, but overall has a good record. Just like he does with LCV. I had an issue with presenting the 20% number without some commentary that explained that it was an anomaly - we don't need to argue against this endorsement using cherry-picked facts.

    The issue is NOT, for Kos and Armando and others, what his ratings are. For them, it's single issue groups seemingly supporting candidates against their own interest.

    And if single issue groups ARE voting against their own interests, then it's stupid. And certainly many single issue groups don't grasp that fact.

    But there's another side to that coin.

    What if the party in power is going to stay in power?

    What should they do then?

    Really, what should they do?

    Can they only give to the candidates and politicians in the political party that is most likely to support their agenda? They can never give to any politicians that are not in the party that is most likely to support their initiatives?

    And what about if the Republicans stay in control of the Senate, and the Sierra Club and the LCV don't believe that their financial support of Senator Chafee will affect the overall balance of power in the Senate?

    IF the Senate stays under control of the Republicans after the 2006 election, wouldn't it benefit these conservation groups to have a candidate who does support their initiatives more than most other Republicans?

    Sure, he's not all that powerful within the Republican Party - mostly because he is not a strong believer in many party platforms - but is he NOT more powerful, as a member of the Republican Party who supports environmental issues, than a Democratic Senator would be in the same Republican-controlled Senate? I think that THIS is the argument that the Sierra Club and LCV use to make the determination that it IS in their best interest to support Chafee in this race.

    And the evidence of that?

    They not only are gonna give him money months from now to try to help him win the National election in November against a Democratic candidate, but they are also giving him money today to help him win the primary battle.

    They think that the Senate will be in the hands of the Republicans no matter what they do. As such, they want a guy who they feel confident will support their issues in the majority party.

    So, what if the Republicans are going to remain in control of the Senate?

    Take the partisan issues out of the picture. If you can help get a supporter of your philosophy into the majority party, or you can help get a supporter of your philosophy into the minority party, what's the best result that will accomplish more of your goals?

    True, the minority party is more likely to have ardent supporters, instead of more lukewarm support from the other party. And true, since this philosophy is NOT warmly embraced by the majority party, the influence of the supporter will not be great. But is it not true that HIS influence within his OWN party is more likely to be greater than the influence of someone from the minority party?

    If the Republicans keep control of the Senate, then the conservationists think that they get more bang for their buck from Chafee than they would from a Democrat in a Republican-controlled Senate. I believe this is what motivated them to make this endorsement.

    ...but not your own facts.

    by slouise217 on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:16:17 PM PDT

    •  Which makes them idiots (0+ / 0-)

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

      by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, like I said (0+ / 0-)

        IF the Republicans ARE going to keep control of the Senate, you don't think it benefits them MORE to have Chafee in their corner?

        EVEN if they would do better with the Democrats in the majority, if they AREN'T in the majority, don't they have a better chance on better results with Chafee in their corner?

        Even if Chafee is NOT very powerful, isn't it better for the Sierra Club to have a member of the majority party in their corner than a member of the minority party in their corner? He has more ability to influence the Republicans than a Democrat likely does, right?

        Take the partisan out of it and explain to me why their bargain doesn't make sense to them.

        If you can't get the political party that best represents your political philosophy into the majority in the legislature, isn't the next best thing to get a member of the majority party that best supports your political philosophy into office?

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:07:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why bet 50$ when you can bet it all, lol. (0+ / 0-)

          Well said. It's about strategy to meet ones goals. I understand and respect this sites main goal (winning elections).  But you still need to have things fall on your side even when you don't win elections.

        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

          Not a bit.

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

          by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:49:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, real persuasive, that argument is (0+ / 0-)

            If you take the partisan out of it, and look at it from the viewpoint of having some impact versus even less impact, IF the Senate is going to stay Republican, you cannot admit to that basic fact even, Armando?

            Really?

            You can't even admit that the likely reason they are doing this is because they think that the Senate will remain Republican, and if it does, it's better to have a Republican who has limited power sympathetic to their cause than a Democrat who's sympathetic to their cause who has no power.

            Turn it around, Armando.

            Let's pretend you are a Republican who is in favor of big business. Would YOU rather have a Republican like Tom DeLay win a seat in a Democratically-controlled Congress, or would you rather have a Democrat who favors big business in that same seat?

            How much import is Tom DeLay gonna have in a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives? Not very damn much. The Democrats are less likely to push any pro-big business bills anyway - that's just not who they are. They are almost certainly not gonna be swayed by DeLay. But what if they have a Democrat who suggests something? That Democrat is more likely to get what YOU want than the Republican is.

            And this is simply the reverse of what I have been saying. They get a potential better result supporting Chafee IF the Senate stays in the Republican majority. And if the Senate goes Democratic, well, they still get the environmental philisophy from the Democrats.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:06:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Again with the 20% obsession (0+ / 0-)

      Here it's just tedious after the first ten times, we got it, it wasn't the issue, big deal, the argument is made without any statistics, they're idiots.
         And I did not appreciate you taking that over to the Pope blog and undercutting every voice who was on there criticizing him/them about their choice.
          Thanks a lot.

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

      by KenBee on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:01:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (0+ / 0-)

        I was right to point out the 20% mischaracterization. It was never an obsession.

        It was relevant.

        Not sure why you would have an issue with it - many others on that same thread said the same thing - a couple of them before I did, while I was gathering and formatting a post with figures compiled from several web pages.

        You're right that I am obsessed with presenting fair arguments.

        Too many times, for example, I heard people arguing that Bush lied about intelligence that led up to the invasion of Iraq, and heard the opponents say that he didn't really lie (which is true except for a couple of occasions - he almost exclusively simply misled, which I would have argued is actually worse and a greater deception) or that all kinds of politicians 'round the world thought that Saddam had WMD's (which is also true, and very relevant!).

        A much better argument is one that addresses the issues in a fair way. One should talk about the distortions, and the omission of caveats and qualifiers when they were presenting the evidence to the American people. One should have talked about how even Saddam, when forced into a corner by the Congressional Resolution, admitted he had none, and the UN Weapons Inspectors were well on their way to proving it when Bush invaded. That's a great argument against invading Iraq, made even stronger with our additional information today about the meeting in January with Bush and Blair and the additional info relating to vetting info from the CIA and from the Iraqi Diplomat mentioned in 60 Minutes last night. Stick to the facts, and you take away the wiggle room that they use to discount your argument.

        Too many times I have seen poorly crafted arguments coming from those on the correct side of the argument get shot down.

        So I DO insist upon a fair review of the evidence. When people were saying 'how can the Sierra Club be supporting a guy that has a 20% pro-environmental rating', I wondered the same fucking thing, and so I went and looked it up, and found out that the 20% was an anomaly. And then came back and told others here about it. And used the argument that the number wasn't an accurate representation of his real record, and would likely engender scorn if an attempt was used to base one's argument on that record.

        Why would you have a problem with that? I had an ongoing debate with Armando, who finally agreed that yes, the 20% figure was misleading, and I did NOT beat it to death for no good reason. There WAS a very good reason to point it out.

        And I agree with Markos and Armando, as I said on that thread AND on this one, that these single issue groups don't understand the effects of the majority party's leadership on issues passing or failing to get support.

        I was really glad to see on this diary that a non-misleading number was used, and because not everyone READ that other diary, I summarized what had happened there.

        And I do not understand your crack about the Pope blog. Anyone who was arguing for the 20% on the Sierra Club website was wrong - that's NOT the reason to be against the Sierra Club supporting Chafee. The reason to be against Chafee is because the Sierra Club should be doing all they can to get the majority in the Senate to switch to those that actually support conservation initiatives, and that's not likely with a Republican majority, even with Chafee as a member of that majority.

        Are YOU saying that someone over that made the argument in the paragraph above, and I undercut ANYONE who was making that argument? How did I do that?

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 03:55:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Undercut (0+ / 0-)

          If a person in the Sierra Club on that more public/probably less readers blog, they could easily, as people are want to do when defensive, see your post and dismiss the others whose argument doesn't really hinge on whether the 20% is accurate or not. In other words, while 'correct' it was a distraction.
             If instead you'd said that 'while some people had quoted the inaccurate 20%, still the Sierra Club should not have endorsed him over the Dem challengers, especially the general election', that would have been barely ok. The way it read, to me but also perhaps to those not privy to this diary and the other, was that we were all wrong based on your discovery and revelation. Unhelpful. The point you made here, over and over, was helpful here for me to learn that and so I did not use it nor did I need it to make my point over there.
             I thought that was unfortunate and unhelpful for you to point that out there. If you had spoken about specific posts there, that would have had a little less effect imo. I think it would have been better to keep it to yourself, there on Pope's blog. It so looks like Dems not agreeing and arguing in public, yet again. Here's the place for that, not there.
             It also could be read that the children got off campus, didn't have passes, and you were there to round us up and apologize.
            Undercut.

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

          by KenBee on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:31:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why did the LCV pass on Brown & Whitehouse??? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, jcwabbit

    What was wrong with Matt Brown & Sheldon Whitehouse, that the LCV would want to pass on them? It's not like the LCV's access to Chafee would make a difference in passing environmental legislation. If it's all about those stupid scores they evaluate the Congress then what makes them think the other  Democratic candidates are any worse??

    Any answers out there?

  •  absurd. These folks are saving me money! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk

    That's another membership I won't be renewing...I'll just direct the money to Chafee's challenger instead!

  •  Response from Carl Pope (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana

    The Sierra Club is being attacked for our endorsement of Lincoln Chafee.  Last Friday, Kos claimed,  based on an honest mistake by NBC, that Chafee had only a 20% environmental scorecard.  NBC corrected its mistake.  We asked Kos to do the same. Here's the response we got:

    "where did that 20 percent number come from?
    and it WAS a supremely stupid move. have fun continuing to live in a world where republcans seek to destroy eveything you hold dear.
    too bad conservative groups aren't this stupid."

    We explained how NBC made its mistake. Still no correction from Kos. Instead, this morning, Kos attacks the LCV scorecards showing Chafee to have a solid environmental record. Kos is entitled to disagree. And we all make, and pass on, honest mistakes.  But when I pass on misinformation, even inadvertently, in my blog or column, I correct it when I find out. Only George Bush never admits to mistakes—and, it seems, Kos.

    As for Chafee's vote for the bankruptcy bill that I found deplorable, Chafee was wrong. But so was Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Joe Biden,  Bill Nelson, and Herb Kohl. Only 25 Senators voted Nay. The vote in the House was 302-126. Kos hasn't gone after the Sierra Club for our support of Stabenow and Nelson, both of whom are also up this year. It's clear that Senator Chafee's enormous and unforgivable sin is that he's a Republican.

    True, American politics has become quasi-parliamentary, as TPM pointed out after the last election, and as David Roberts commented in the context of the Chafee question on Grist. And that reality, which was engineered by the reactionary right, does change political dynamics. The question is whether, in taking it into account, groups like the Sierra Club with non-partisan traditions should simply throw in the towel and start acting as they would in a truly parliamentary context, by endorsing parties, not individuals. That's really what Kos is asking us to do.

    We have not done so.  Neither have the other major multi-partisan advocacy groups--organized labor, NARAL, NRA, NAACP. (Kos to the contrary, conservative groups like the NRA do endorse conservative Democrats.)  And there are two good reasons.  First, quasi-parliamentary politics in a nation with a gerrymandered 60-votes-to-act US Senate has reactionary consequences, and it's important to make this moment as brief as possible by restoring debate and independence within the two parties. Environmentalists, and progressives in general, don't want gridlock, we want vigorous government. Reactionaries don't. The reason that the reactionaries adopted a strategy of moving politics in a parliamentary direction was to create gridlock, as they did, successfully, in the 103rd Congress.  Relatively lock-step Republican filibusters killed Clinton's first two years and ushered in Gingrich. Second, the US Constitution is strongly tilted to prevent parliamentary politics from becoming entrenched, and it's a mistake to play by today's rules in ways you'll regret tomorrow when the rules, more than likely, swing back to their normal fractured and undisciplined state.

    •  Bankruptcy bill (0+ / 0-)

      No mention of that 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 Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:54:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure what you mean (0+ / 0-)

        I saw this in the Pope response:

        As for Chafee's vote for the bankruptcy bill that I found deplorable, Chafee was wrong. But so was Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Joe Biden,  Bill Nelson, and Herb Kohl. Only 25 Senators voted Nay. The vote in the House was 302-126. Kos hasn't gone after the Sierra Club for our support of Stabenow and Nelson, both of whom are also up this year. It's clear that Senator Chafee's enormous and unforgivable sin is that he's a Republican.

    •  the issue is not confined (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      to just the bills that are rated on votesmart .. sorry.

      Anyone who uses these markers is kidding themselves.

      The bigger issues, the facts are we do not have the money to implement any of the regulations because 'environmentally friendly' GOP'ers like Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Sununu and Gregg vote political appointees that destroy the very laws that Congress tries to pass.

      These are the same people that vote for a unnecessary war, for Supreme Court Justices that will continue to give authority to the Executive Branch over the Congress, the 'Unitary Executive'.

      I don't care if their records are 100% for every environmental issue: it means nothing if they vote for people like Janice Brown to administer the EPA, for people like John Roberts and Samuel Alito for SCOTUS.

      Has any one of these faux GOP Badge Polishers ever provided the tie breaking vote for meaningful environmental legislation?

      EVER?

      Please someone, show me where any of them ever have.
      I'd love to see it.

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

      by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:01:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Boy, ain't that funny (0+ / 0-)

      And guess what I said on the Sierra Club diary? That the 20% rating numbers would just generate responses that said 'you idiots, you got that number wrong, and I am gonna ignore everything you say as a result'!

      ...but not your own facts.

      by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:10:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The last time they listened to Kos (0+ / 0-)
    ...they got their ass handed to them in TX.

    I don't blame them for endorsing Chafee; supporting his opponent is too high risk for to little incremental gain.

    As Dems, we NEED 3rd parties who will do what they have to do. Otherwise, the environmental, abortion rights, gay rights,  and labor groups will become as mealy-mouthed as political parties.

    Their position should be, if you're good on our issues, you get support; otherwise, not. They should not be so closely identified with one party (ours) that they lose sight of their primary advocacy.

    On the other, WE should try our damnedest to beat Chafee.

    BTW, is this endorsement for both the primary and general election? If we show the Dem can win, maybe they will listen to reason.

    In the meantime, it's not sensible to expect them to put their necks on the chopping block when Chafee's vote in 2007 might be the very one they need to save the effin' planet.

    •  And what do you know about the Dems in this race (0+ / 0-)

      Hell waht do you know abot Chafee?

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

      by Armando on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:02:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if you read (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      you'll find this endorsement if for the general election. Now, ask yourself why that is.

      The last time they listened to Kos ...they got their ass handed to them in TX.

      ..supporting his opponent is too high risk for to little incremental gain ..

      What does that mean?

      Otherwise, the environmental, abortion rights, gay rights,  and labor groups will become as mealy-mouthed as political parties.

      Exactly what has happened to NARAL, Sierra and LCV, by supporting Rape-public-cans.

      Perfect.

      Thanks for playing.

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

      by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:12:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pitifully, both the general and primary (0+ / 0-)

      They could have given him  just the primary endorsement against the worse Repub, but they shouldn't have for the general, that's the biggest problem.

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

      by KenBee on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:06:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They did it for both (0+ / 0-)

        Because they believe that the Republicans will continue to control the Senate.

        And if that's the case, Chafee is the best guy they cannot afford to lose.

        If the Democrats were in the majority, then they could afford to lose him, or if they thought that the Democrat in his seat was gonna win over a Republican, any Republican, they coulda stayed out of the primary.

        But because they got into the primary AND the general, it's a clear sign that they think that regardless of who they support, a Republican will win in Rhode Island and the Republicans will be in control in the Senate.

        And if that happens, Chafee is more valuable than a good pro-environmentalist Democrat. Chafee is up against some tough sledding, but he has more impact than a Freshman Democrat would in a Republican-controlled Senate.

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:16:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry no sale. The 51R vs 49D Senate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shpilk

          We're still screwed. Whatever Chafee does then, he'll still do, with or without the endorsement. ( which still should have been primary only, if at all- I can see the endorsement for the primary as a recognition and a practical matter, but not the general.ugh.)
            I want a 51-D, 49-R Senate, minimum.
          You're using those cheap bird watching binoculars you get with the Sierra Club newsletter subscription. You should get some better ones with a wider field of view.heh.
          'nite, nice try tho.

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

          by KenBee on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:45:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who said I didn't want a Democratic majority? (0+ / 0-)

            Did my fingers go off on their own and type something that I now have to go back and disavow?

            'Cuz I sure don't remember typing anything like that - that I personally didn't want a Democratic majority! I do want that. And, as I said on the other Sierra Club thread, I AGREE with Kos and Armando that groups that do not understand that votes on legislative leadership, and committee leadership based upon the majority party, are missing the boat.

            In fact, I am NOT a Sierra Club member - I think that those kinda groups are sometimes out of touch with reality, and I have never been a member of any kind of a conservation organization. I recycle, try to keep my car tuned, don't fill up with gas on Ozone Action days, and pick up my litter, but that's the extent of my conservation efforts.

            So, the (not) good try is on YOUR part here, bud.

            You are the one that tried to discount me falsely.

            I am NOT supporting Chafee, nor the LCV, or the Sierra Club.

            I am supporting the truth.

            The truth that the Sierra Club likely thinks that the Republicans are gonna keep the Senate, and keep the seat in Rhode Island.

            If that happens, their best option is to have Chafee in the seat.

            If the Republicans remain the majority in Congress, but a Democrat wins the seat in Rhode Island, they think they are less well-off, because they have lost a strong environmental voice inside the majority party, even if overall he is not a leader of that majority party, because a freshman Democrat would be even less powerful, simply because he is a member of the minority party.

            This works for both sides, and for multiple issues. This is NOT a formula that only works on this one topic.

            Legislator A, who is a maverick in his political party because he supports single issue 123, from Majority Party X, is a more powerful supporter of issue 123 than Legislator B, who, along with most of his minority political party, Party Z, supports issue 123. A member of the majority party who supports an issue is gonna have more power, most of the time, than a member of the minority party who supports that same issue.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 03:16:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The LCVs flawed strategy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee

              If you are correct that the LCV endorsed Chafee because they think the GOP will retain control of the Senate - a not unlikely assumption - then I must say that I think the logic is flawed. It does not take into consideration the length of term.

              Whoever wins will be in for six years - three election cycles. This is race is not just about who will control the Senate next year but for the election cycle after that and after that. The LCV needed to think long term and they haven't. (Same goes for the other single-issue groups that made choices based on this flawed strategy.)

              The kind of strategy that you identify may have marginal effectiveness in the House - or at least is not so risky. But when it comes to the Senate you must - as I believe the the founding fathers intended - look beyond the turmoil of the present day and think in grander scale. If this is the game that needs to be played, then the LCV should have approached it as a question of what is best short-term (House races) and long-term (Senate races).

               

              •  Oh, I sure think it's a flawed strategy (0+ / 0-)

                But given their support for him in both the primary AND the general election, I believe it has to be their thinking.

                It looks like,in Rhode Island, a Republican would win that seat in any case - and if that's the case, they would prefer Chafee over the other guy.

                And if Chafee is the candidate, then the endorsement from the Sierra Club and LCV are legal bribes to him.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Absolutely NOT! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kimberly Stone, KenBee

                  Please get your facts straight.  The RI Senate seat is definitely up for grabs.  Remember this is the bluest state in the nation.

                  Chafee's Republican challenger, Steve Laffey polls far below either Whitehouse or Brown, both D, in a general election.  Chafee has a slight lead over a Democratic opponent in the general.  If Chafee loses the primary and sits out the general (eg doesn't run as an Independent) then the victor is likely Sheldon Whitehouse.

                  Laffey doesn't really have a chance UNLESS Chafee runs as an Independent (no indication yet of that) and splits Democratic votes with the Democratic challenger (likely Whitehouse).

                  Many RI Democrats like Chafee personally and his bipartisan approach to politics (not me - I see his votes on cloture, on the bankruptcy bill as unprincipled capitulation to the demands of the GOP).  While these RI Dems like his "moderation", they fail to see that a Republican in that Senate seat enables the extremists in the Republican party to hold on to their majority.

                  Why do you think Karl Rove and the Republican party are channelling so much money into this race?  It ain't to help the LCV.

  •  It's all the new rage (0+ / 0-)

    this FAUX GOP Environmentalism.

    It's just like GHWB's 'thousand points of light'.

    It's just like Juniors 'compassionate conservatism'.

    It's fake.
    It's crap.

    It needs to be 'shouted from the rooftops'.

    The solution is defeating the GOP.
    Everywhere. ALL OF THEM.

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

    by shpilk on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:05:30 PM PDT

  •  a small correction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, KenBee

    the LCV scorecard does include the Brown nomination, which along with his wrong vote on CAFTA kept him from 100%.  The Alito confirmation wasn't shown b/c that was in 2006, the scorecard is for 2005.

    That being said, as an environmentalist, I don't care if he's a 100% pro-enviro voter. Electing a Democrat that will vote just as well, but help the change the balance of the Senate is more important.  Its important for the environment for the (comparitevly) pro-environment party to be in charge.

    "I have no country to fight for: my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world." - Eugene V. Debs

    by NeilDB on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 08:35:40 PM PDT

  •  Try this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slouise217, bren
    The basic premise of the criticisms of the LCV and Sierra Club endorsements seems to be that once the Democrats are in power, all manner of good environmental legislation will pass because, well, they're Democrats.  dburbach stated "But today, even the best Republicans vote worse than almost any Democrat."

    I hate to bother dburbach and Armando with facts, since they seem to fit so poorly into their worldview, but here are the LCV scores for 2005 and the 108th Congress (2003-04) for Chafee and a half dozen Democrats:

                         2005     108th

    Chafee             90%      72%

    Lincoln             65%      40%
    Pryor                60%      48%
    Landrieu           50%      32%
    Ben Nelson       30%      32%
    Reid                 100%     76%
    Tim Johnson      80%     52%

    Think of the LCV/Sierra Club endorsements this way--if Reid becomes Majority Leader, he won't be able to deliver good environmental legislation, because at least 10% of the Democratic caucus is more than likely to vote against it.  For the environmental community, they had better have someone like Chafee to cancel out Ben Nelson at least, much less Landrieu and the Arkansans, because Democratic control doesn't automatically mean that strong environmental legislation will pass.

    When are we going to get it through our heads that just having a Democratic Senate doesn't mean that we'll get everything we want?  I'm old enough to remember a Democratic Senate caving on Iran-contra because Ollie North squinted at them and bragged about how patriotic he was.  They should have been pressuring the House to hold impeachment hearings instead.  And wasn't it a Democratic Senate that gave us Clarence Thomas?

    Until there's greater discipline in the Democratic Caucus, on environmental issues and everything else, simply having a majority won't guarantee any outcome.

    •  Thanks for the info, Rayspace n/t (0+ / 0-)

      ...but not your own facts.

      by slouise217 on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:18:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  cherrypicking the stats (0+ / 0-)

      is worthy of something done, well ..  in the Bush WH

      Yup, your boy Chafee beats the 5 worst Dems

      Congratulations

      Meanwhile, the larger point is, Chafee votes in people like Thomas and Alito to SCOTUS, and Janice Brown to the EPA .. votes for Republican 'plays wars'

      Until there's greater discipline in the Democratic Caucus

      vote Republican ?

      Makes a TON of sense .. not

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

      by shpilk on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:06:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  re: cherrypicking the stats (0+ / 0-)
        Geez, shpilk--I'm awfully sorry I wrote something that wasn't tailored to your third grade reading level.  Maybe, I don't know, if you'd actually paid attention to what I wrote, you wouldn't have seen fit to spit such bile.

        I provided three years worth of numbers on each Senator--how can that be cherrypicking?  All I said was that ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ALONE, Chafee has a better voting record than some Democrats.

        Did I say I would vote for him if I lived in Rhode Island?  No, I said the opposite:  "if I lived in Rhode Island, I'd vote for Brown or Whitehouse to give Democrats control of the Senate."

        Plus, you quoted me out of context, again.  In terms of party discipline, I didn't say anyone should vote Republican.  The entirety of my argument was "Until there's greater discipline in the Democratic Caucus, on environmental issues and everything else, simply having a majority won't guarantee any outcome."  

        Now who's cherrypicking?  

        My point is that we can't guarantee that a vote to end the war, defeat the bankruptcy bill, reject bad judges, or pass good environmental legislation will pass just because the Democrats get a majority.  We sure as hell won't get it with the Republicans in charge, but we can't just bow to the D after someone's name, particularly on specific policy issues.

        BTW, Janice Rogers Brown was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court, not the EPA--not that facts have ever mattered to you.

      •  Don't need to cherrypick (0+ / 0-)

        Y'all are fantasizing about the environmental grooviness of the Dems. Just look at the LCV scores! Chafee is better on both counts than eleven Democrats.
                  2005   108th
        Chafee     90      72

        Lincoln    65      40
        Pryor      60      48
        Salazar    80       -
        Lieberman 70      56
        Inouye     65      64
        Landrieu   50      32
        Baucus     55      52
        Nelson     30      32
        Conrad     60      60
        Dorgan     65      56
        Johnson    80      52

    •  All things considered (0+ / 0-)

      It still makes more sense to have a pro-environment Democrat to balance out Ben Nelson than a pro-environment Republican.

      Whitehouse has a good record here.

      http://www.whitehouseforsenate.com/...

      •  Thank you!!! (0+ / 0-)

        This is exactly what I have been asking for, last week and this.  Most of the responses have been "But-but-but Whitehouse and Brown are Democrats, therefore they have to be better on the environment than Chafee."  This article by Whitehouse provides the solid evidence that he truly would have at least as good a record on the environment as Chafee, and he wouldn't be beholden to Frist or whomever else becomes the Republican leader, as Chafee would be were he to win.

        There's still no chance, even with a Democratic majority, for strong environmental legislation to pass, given the lack of support by conservative Democrats I and citizenstk cited, but it sounds like Whitehouse would make it a priority if elected.

        Go Sheldon!

  •  Keeping it simple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jcwabbit
    There is no moderation with environmental extremists in control of our government. There is no compromise with people who are willing to gut every environmental protection of the last century, directly or indirectly. The tiresome fact is that there is no compromise on anything else as well, but that doesn't excuse forgiveness on this issue.
    The man should have youth and strength who seeks adventure in the wide, waste spaces of the earth, in the marshes, and among the vast mountain masses, in the northern forests, amid the steaming jungles of the tropics, or on the desert of sand or of snow. He must long greatly for the lonely winds that blow across the wilderness, and for sunrise and sunset over the rim of the empty world.
    Does anyone really think Chafee or any of his Senate buddies would really feel the poetry of the words of their ostensible political forefather? Any politician who supports the current regime would be absolute anathema to T. Roosevelt, who understood what the word "conserve" and its derivatives meant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site