Remember how the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Lincoln Chafee's reelection bid, saying how great he was for the environment? We already know how those groups looked the other way as Chafee voted to confirm dozens of Bush's anti-environment judges to appelate courts and even the Supreme Court.
Yet, per Scott Shield's post on the subject, the environmental blog Gristmill defended the Chafee endorsements, saying:
On abortion, battle lines are drawn [...] In short, endorsing Chafee means endorsing the anti-abortion party, irrespective of his personal views.
But the environmental dynamic is different. During the '80s and '90s, it came close to becoming a strictly partisan issue, but environmental issues do not sit comfortably in that niche [...]
Chafee has proven instrumentally effective at blocking some of Bush's environmental madness, but just as much he serves an important symbolic role. Republicans in Congress, and out in the hinterlands, need to be shown that a) it's safe to be a Republican environmentalist, and b) environmental organizations will welcome them. If they'll drop the partisan warfare, the Sierra Club will too.
Well, last week, those (and other) environmental groups urged the rejection of Bush's EPA appointees:
Thirteen environmental and public health organizations are urging the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to oppose the confirmation of William Wehrum to be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The committee is expected to vote on his confirmation Wednesday, April 26.
In a letter to all the members of the committee, the groups say Wehrum "should not be entrusted with the responsibilities" of that office because "he has played a central role in developing and defending air pollution policies that weaken critical public health and environmental protection."
Seems pretty important, huh? As Think Progress notes, Wehrum is really quite awful.
- Wehrum was a lead author of Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation, which would have loosened emissions caps on dangerous airborne toxins.
- In 2002, while serving as OAR's general counsel, Wehrum shepherded through a rule written by forest products industry lobbyists that relaxed the emission standards for formaldehyde. Wehrum had previously represented those same timber interests as a lobbyist.
- In 2004, Wehrum implemented new industry-friendly mercury guidelines that substantially weakened the Clean Air Act. Again, Wehrum's former lobbying firm played an instrumental role in drafting the rule.
- Just this week, a draft of a new air pollution rule, drafted under the oversight of Wehrum, came under fire from congressional leaders. The proposal would allow polluters to discharge thousands of pounds of airborne toxins while "virtually avoiding regulation."
Guess who voted to confirm Wehrum? And no, it's not a trick question.
(Hint: it was Chafee, though you won't see this vote in LCV's next scorecard.)
Update: Gristmill blogger David Roberts (who I've known for a while and have always respected) emailed me to tell me that he had already eaten crow by the time I blogged this.
I included that Gristmill post not so much to bash him, but to show that even the most rational argument in favor of the LCV and Sierra Club endorsements didn't hold up to reality.
I really do understand the desperate need for many groups to forge a bipartisan agenda and cross-party ties. It would clearly be best for them in the long haul. And once upon a time, that sort of strategy worked. Remember, Nixon signed the EPA into law.
But the modern Republican Party has no resemblance to those Republicans of old. The political landscape has shifted radically in the last decade, and these groups will have to come to terms with that hopefully sooner rather than later.