RI-Sen: Chafee repays LCV and Sierra Club

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.

Race tracker wiki: RI-Sen

•  aoeu

  I'm sure they "endorsed" him so they can withdraw their endorsement down the stretch costing him several points...yeah...I'm sure of it.........

  by TealVeal on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:08:11 PM PDT

•  I work for an environmental non-profit

  And the truth is, if we defeat chafee, but don't take a majority, we lose his key spot on some of the committees and may actually be disadvantaged.  As much as it sucks, and as much as he sucks on other things, I can see why they supported him.

  I think hes gonna lose, and Im glad, but I can still see where SC and LCV are coming from

  by faithfull on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:10:02 PM PDT

  •  For instance...

    ...Chafee was the only defecting Republican when Wehrum's "Clear SKies" bill died 9-9 in the environment and public works committee

    by faithfull on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:11:28 PM PDT

    •  Not to have a conversation with myself...

      ...but Matt Brown dropped out of the RI Senate race today, letting Whitehouse conserve some of his resources for the general to take down Laffey.

      by faithfull on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:12:54 PM PDT

    •  And while the GOP controls the Senate

      any damn good thing Chaffee does in committee can be undone with a conference committee agreement in the dead of night, undertaken without Chaffee in the room.  Show me a vote of his that really mattered.  What matters is not having conference committees be GOP-only clubs.

      by Major Danby on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:50:44 PM PDT

      •  Chafee is

        weak and irrelevant.

        Pass it on.

        by Aexia on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:14:46 PM PDT

      •  If the Republicans keep control of the Senate

        A Republican pro-environmentalist is more powerful than a Democratic pro-environmentalist.

        Chafee may NOT be all that powerful.

        But he'll be more powerful than a Democrat would be if the Republicans remain in majority control of Congress.

        by slouise217 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:39:01 PM PDT

        •  If Repubs keep control

          of both Houses, we're fucked anyway and it won't matter. Shitcanning Chaffee gets us one step closer to getting the Senate back, and that's the ultimate goal here.

          by incertus on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:01:19 PM PDT

          •  Nope

            But thanks for playing.

            If the Republicans keep control, it IS true that environmental issues will NOT be as prominent, and will NOT have as great a chance of being supported.

            But IF they keep control, then it's BETTER with Chafee in office.

            I am not sure why so many people cannot understand this simple concept - it ain't rocket science.

            I NEVER said that Chafee should stay in office.

            I NEVER said that keeping Chafee in office was the preferred thing to do.

            I said that IF the Republicans keep control of the Senate, then environmental issues get more attention if Chafee is in office than if a Democrat holds that seat.

            It DOES matter who is in office IF the Republicans keep control of the Senate.

            I KNOW what the ultimate goal is.

            Would be nice if you acknowledged what I said that next time you reply.

            by slouise217 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:07:28 PM PDT

            •  Make this non-partisan

              One side wants us to go to the moon.

              The other side wants to stop 'wasting money' in space exploration.

              Let's say that the space geeks are in the minority party.

              The 'stop spending money on spaceships' party is in the majority.

              But within the majority party, there are a few people that support space exploration.

              If the majority party keeps their majority, is it better to have a minority person in any one Senate seat who supports space exploration or a member of the majority party who supports space exploration in that same Senate seat?

              Of course it's better to get the majority party candidate to support it - he at least has SOME pull within his party, rather than no pull like the minority party legislator would.

              If the majority party keeps their majority, and you have a single issue that you support, it's better to have a majority party guy in your corner than a member of the minority in your corner.

              Of course, the BEST solution is to have the political party that supports the issues you do in power.

              Short of getting your preferred party in the majority, the next best thing is to have someone in the majority party represent your minority party-supported position on the issue well.

              Even less good would be to have a member of the minority party support your issue.

              Best to have the political party that supports space exploration in the majority to get space exploration funded.

              Next best would be to have a member of the majority party support space exploration contrary to the wishes of the majority of his party.

              Least best would be to have a member of the minority party support space exploration.

              by slouise217 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:17:56 PM PDT

            •  This goes beyond environmentalism

              If Chaffee were a sure vote on this issue, you might have a point, but as recent votes have shown, Chaffee can't be counted on when the chips are down. So what good is he? He might as well be a winger.

              by incertus on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 10:36:16 PM PDT

              •  Chafee is a good vote 70% of the time

                He does NOT have to be an ace in the hole, and all powerful, to be MORE valuable than a Democrat if the Republicans are in the majority.

                Try again.

                He had a 20% rating one year.

                He had a better than 70% rating in 2004-2006. He had a 67% positive environmental rating in the past 7 years according to the Sierra Club, and a 90% rating by the LCV recently.

                He does not have to be a sure vote all the time for this point to be valid.

                I am baffled as to why you would think he WOULD have to be a sure vote to be more valuable than a member of the minority party in the same seat. Even a staunch environmentalist who was a Democrat would be less likely to influence legislative action in the Republican-controlled Senate than Chafee.

                And, in fact, he probably is MORE likely to HAVE some impact and some influence if he is NOT gung-ho on the topic. If he asked for the moon, he might not get anything. If he asks for a smaller concessiion, he is more likely to get it.

                Once again, the BEST results for environmentalists would be a Democratically-controlled Senate. But with a Republican-controlled Senate, the best results for environmentalists could easily be Chafee in that seat.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 12:19:51 AM PDT

                •  I don't know

                  if you're trying to be aggravating with that "try again" line, but trust me, it's aggravating, especially since you haven't proven my point of view demonstrably wrong. We disagree on a main point that deals primarily with strategy. That's all. And in the end, we agree that the best outcome is for a Democratically controlled Senate.

                  But here's the thing--to get to that control, we need to have Senators from all the blue states, because there are fewer blue states, and win some red ones. Well, in the West, we've done a pretty good job at the latter. But there's no excuse for having Republican Senators from Rhode Island and Maine, just to name a couple, and while Snowe and Collins aren't vulnerable, Chaffee is, so if the goal is to get Democratic control, Chaffee has to go. It would be another story if Chaffee was pro-environment and was from, oh, Utah. Then the endorsement makes sense, since there's little chance we'd win there anyway. But in Rhode Island?

                  We need that seat--end of story.

                  by incertus on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:27:05 AM PDT

      •  I just did that

        The Clear Skies bill, the largest rollback of clean air laws in our nations history, was stopped 9-9 in the environment and public works committee. All Dems voted against it, and chaffee was the only republican defection. The bill died. That was good.

        Hes FFAAAAAAAR from perfect. But thats why theyre supporting him.

        by faithfull on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 07:50:49 AM PDT

        •  And I noted

          that whatever Chaffee does in committee can be undone in a conference committee to which an untrustworthy Republican like him will not be admitted.

          And, frankly, if he gets in the way too much, the Pug leaders can take him off of the environment committee.

          Supporting Chaffee remains massively short-sighted.

          by Major Danby on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:33:34 AM PDT

          •  I disagree

            They haven't taken him off the committee yet.

            And he has stopped Clear Skies, Arctic Drilling, and the Endangered Species Act (with full Dem support.) None of that has been undone.

            Hes not the best, but hes better to have while Republicans control the committees.

            by faithfull on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 10:56:29 AM PDT

            •  Arctic drilling may be put into a bill this week

              without the committee being able to stop it.  They only have to win that bill once.  When they need to win it, they can get rid of him easily.  He's tissue-paper armor.

              by Major Danby on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 11:00:27 AM PDT

•  i just don't

  understand it. Time after time it makes me angry, but this time I just feel like crying. Why don't people get it? Stop basing your votes on your hopes and base them on what is right there in front of you. Our world literally depends on it.

  by jbiddy on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:10:21 PM PDT

  •  for real....

    At some point, it goes from frustration to pure anger. I'm running out of patience for the idiotic leadership of these groups.

    If they're too stupid to help themselves, why should i help them? It's like dating a girl who keeps running back to her old abusive boyfriend. There are plenty of other environmental groups who do need our money and who aren't politically oblivious.

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:18:48 PM PDT

  •  That's the thing...

    They ARE basing this off of what is right in front of them: A semi-popular incumbent from the majority party who will, assuming that said party remains in the majority (which is unfortunately very likely), be their bitch now and vote their way lest they remove those endorsements that helped him win in a very blue state. Besides, I think taking on Chafee is a waste of money, he is more liberal than most Democrats and I can almost guarantee he'll pull a Jeffords if we pick up 5 seats. Why blow the money there when we can pump it into races that have VERY conservative and weak incumbents and that could honestly use the cash more like Arizona, Nevada, Montana, or Missouri? I understand our duty is to elect Democrats, etc., but this doesn’t seem like a very good use of funds.

    by Geoff Epso on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:14:08 PM PDT

    •  Chafee MUST be defeated

      If for no other reason than this.  You "can almost guarantee" that Chafee will switch parties if the Dems pick up 5 other seats?

      Do you realize how damning that is of Chafee's character, if true?  You're saying that he would only have the guts to switch if he was sure he'd be in the majority?  Basically, he'd be saying, "you know how I helped destroy America and the world by empowering Frist, and a giant Bush rubber stamp?  Well, I didn't really mean it, it wasn't based on anything other than pure self-interest, now I'm going to caucus with the Dems, now that there's no personal risk in it for me."  

      The contemptibility of such cravenness cannot be encapsulated.

      by RepublicanTaliban on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:41:15 PM PDT

      •  Poor character maybe, but

        since alone he wouldn't put the dem's in the majority, it's better if he votes with us frequently but remains in the majority party for now.

        by amRadioHed on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:11:40 PM PDT

        •  Votes with us frequently?

          You mean, like, when he voted against Bolton after he voted him out of committee?  Or when he voted for Roberts or for cloture on Alito?  Or for the bankruptcy bill?

          Etc. etc.

          So, if the Dems pick up 5 other seats, he'd vote opposite in the future?  What a joke.

          by RepublicanTaliban on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 01:14:48 AM PDT

      •  uh...

        He does more good in the majority party now. He heads commitees and he can split votes in favor of the Democrats. I'm sure the party would encourage him to stay with the Republicans. He does more good there. I'm sorry I'll take a Republican who is more liberal than some Dems over Jon Kyl or Ensign or Burns or Talent. We have to realize that though Chafee may not be as liberal as we want, to spend the MOUNDS OF CASH to defeat him just doesn't strike me as wise. He is crushing Whitehouse at the moment, and is winning the primary by an even larger margin. Really I just think those funds would be better in a race against a TRUE conservative. Chafee right now is the least of our problems.

        by Geoff Epso on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 07:23:00 PM PDT

    •  that's bull

      Are you blind? Did you not read the post? He voted to confirm Wehrum. He will not be anymore in the pocket of these special interest grops than he was before. And we know how that turned out.

      Being in the majority means having the power to set the agenda. Any opportunity we have to put a D instead of an R to help put us in the majority is a good use of funds.

      by jbiddy on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 12:21:49 AM PDT

•  Sierra Club

  I've been dismissive of the Sierra Club for awhile now, I used to work at a leading anti-pesticides NGO and it always seemed to me that the Sierra Club was so thoroughly middle class and almost academic in it's culture that it lacked the guts to really make a difference.

  But this is the first time I've been actively angry at them. As a lifelong and avid environmentalist it really seems like it would be a good thing if the Sierra Club went away, it's really just a case of lead or get out of the way. The Sierra Club seems more and more like deadwood to me, sucking up money and mindshare when the innovative groups are left underfunded.

  by storme on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:19:30 PM PDT

  •  Sierra Club blocked Alaska drilling

    Again and again and again.
    If it wasn't for them we would have drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

    There's a reason.

    by Taunger on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:32:44 PM PDT

    •  The Sierra Club

      And its 700,000 members do more for the environment before breakfast than 90% of the people on this blog have done in their lifetimes. But since Kos doesn't like their politcal judgement, we should condemn them.

      by Ed in Montana on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:09:34 PM PDT

      •  Obviously hasn't been my take

        But I won't claim I've followed them closely. The names I see again and again doing cutting edge stuff are EDF (now ED) and NRDC, perhaps it's because they're more newsworthy so I hear about it more but I just haven't seen the Sierra Club show up.

        by storme on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:24:53 PM PDT

•  Long Time Member

  I'm so torn about this endorsement by the Sierra Club.  They have shown up and taken so many stands legally and yet...this so stinks.  I'm beyond exasperation.  They are working on a project 50 miles away from me that will totally mess up one of the most beautiful places I know of in Ohio, yet I fear they will crawl into bed with these Pave The World Rethugs we have here in S.Ohio.  What is the world coming to, after all?  Ack.

  by JanL on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:22:01 PM PDT

  •  Oops

    I mean, working against a project 50 miles away from me.  See, I'm so pissed, can't even type or preview. Dammit!

    by JanL on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:23:44 PM PDT

•  Middle of the road

  Yeah sure, Chafee is better than James Watt. Yeah sure he has a conscience. Yay for Republicans! He can be our poster boy that proves that Republicans aren't really any different than right wing democrats. See? Can't we all just get along?

  I'm sorry, I just don't follow the logic behind supporting people who support this President. Chaffe is a lap dog in Standard Poodle clothing. He wants it both ways. "Oh no, don't associate ME with the dark side! I'm a GOOD Rethuglican!

  Pure BS.

  by randallt on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:26:09 PM PDT

•  'moderate' republicans are still republicans.

  'nuff said. We need to defeat them first and fine tune later.

  by ablington on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:27:32 PM PDT

  •  You are SO right

    Hell, we have enough Democrats to worry about, we sure don't need ANY Republican victories. We'll get them, that is a given. But encourage them? This whole idea of milktoast middle of the road find the common ground with evil idea is not what we need. It makes me sick.

    by randallt on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:54:25 PM PDT

•  Inexcusable

  We should be trying to destroy Republicans, not court them.

  And where do they get off alienating pro-choice activists?  Environmentalists and Choice activists should be working in tandem; you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back style.

  by RanDomino on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:28:29 PM PDT

•  Why

  I read your book.
  I work for a environmental group, and see your points.  In fact, I think there are lots of folks in the group I work for that would rather see Sheldon win.
  The thing I see missing in these posts is any sort of journalistic searching for answers as to why this occurence keeps happening.
  I'm writing to LCV to see why they are endorsing Chafee.  Maybe some questions might start the gears grinding.

  by Taunger on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:30:38 PM PDT

•  baby/bathwater, nose/face, cake/eat it too...

  ...and forest / trees.

  as for this part of grist's scott shield (to a very limited point):

  a) it's safe to be a Republican environmentalist

  well, it's safer than being a gay republican anyway.

  i don't think chafee does or deserves to feel safe, and it's not because of his record on specific environmental matters, or centrist-seeming stances on other issues.

  it's because his broader record reveals a tension between when he probably does believe, and what he  has actually mustered up the fortitude to stand up for on a consistent basis.  

  his party has abondoned the likes of him, and he's failed to adjust accordingly.  i kind of feel for the guy, but i firmly hope that he adjusts more comfortably to an early retirement from politics.

  by homo neurotic on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:31:36 PM PDT

•  I WAS a long-time LCV supporter...

  I've been giving them large annual donations since the '80s. They called me a couple weeks ago-before the Chafee endorsement- to solicit money for the '06 campaign. I told them I couldn't give money to an organization that endorsed Lieberman. They said they hoped I'd eventually return to the fold. I said I hoped they would. Clearly, they're now as big a waste of time and money as NARAL. Both organizations are now part of the corrupt beltway machine. Breaks my heart.

  by Turkana on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:36:52 PM PDT

•  BTW

  LCV just got a new executive director.  Has barely been a month.  

  Gene Karpinski, the director for USPIRG for years.  

  For all you cynics, maybe worth checking back in after a year or so, once he gets his feet wet.

  by Taunger on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:43:41 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    All our feet may be wet if we wait a year.

    by adios on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:21:35 PM PDT

•  the disconnect of these groups is a train wreck

  of the Left ..

  really, honestly discouraging

  by shpilk on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:14:15 PM PDT

•  Good call on the scorecard

  Don't know if it's mentioned in CTG, but people should be aware that all issue group scorecards should be taken with a pound of salt.  A given organization might cherry pick votes on a post hoc basis, so that the organization doesn't get embarassed when one of its endorsees is objectively mediocre.  Some scorecards provide a fairly objective metric.  Others have different agendas.

  by DelRPCV on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:29:49 PM PDT

•  They ate crow over there today

  Publicly.

  by tribe34 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:34:37 PM PDT

  •  Good for them

    And not in a snarky way either. It's always nice to see people admit they screwed up, especially since the default mechanism seems to be to try to spin out of it.

    by incertus on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:04:36 PM PDT

•  Another real-life example of CTG points!

  Great book, well written, and this is a perfect example of why these groups are cutting off their noses to spite their face.

  We need to get the majority, so we all win, not just me because if I sleep with this guy who "really, really promises" to help me out on this one thing I need (later), if I give him some love now.  And then he never calls back...

  Lie with dogs, get up with fleas.

  by seronimous on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:38:40 PM PDT

•  It's mainly to claim bipartisanship and get $$$

  Groups like the Sierra Club, in my opinion, strive to find some Republicans they can endorse in order to claim that they are really, really bipartisan -- as opposed to nonpartisan.

  If I had to guess, I think they do this more to bring in donations from Republican leaning environmentalists than they do to get votes from elected Republicans.

  As a result, they find some personally less-disgusting Republican, hold their nose, and endorse him or her no matter their past or likely voting habits.

  by el cid on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:48:02 PM PDT

  •  The Sierra Club endorses a few republicans

    Because a third of their members nationally are republicans.

    by Ed in Montana on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:14:07 PM PDT

•  NYT on Wehrum, Kempthorne...n/t

  http://www.truthout.org/...

  by adios on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:24:11 PM PDT

•  As a SC member I welcome Kos' challenge to them

  I hope every Sierra Club board member reads Crashing The Gate and thinks hard about whether bi-partisan strategy can work in the climate of the Republican Taliban.

  As far as Chafee goes. I have been following his enviro record for many years and he has done alot for the environment over the years. I believe it is an issue that he cares about and he has been better on natural resource issues than alot of Western Democrats were when Dems controlled the Senate. But, today the Republicans have gone so far down the kool aid path and Chafee seems to be riding the bus with them towards their apocalyptic wet dream. After reading CTG, I agree with Markos and Jerome that it is imperative to disempower the Republican party and pick up every seat we can.

  This is a healthy debate that Sierra Club and LCV should welcome.

  by Stumptown Dave on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:58:56 PM PDT

•  Another example of why Liberals are Losing

  This is really sad but so true.  The notion that these environmental groups think that Chafee can do them any good as a republican environmentalist is about as nutty as it gets.  Someone above mentioned that anything he does just gets undone when the bills go to conference....and he isn't allowed in the room.

  Liberal groups that still want to work with conservatives need to wake up.  It ain't gonna happen.  We have to win and force things to go our way.  Conservatives are not the kind of people who want to compromise with us.  They want to beat us.  Making nice to them is never going to work.

  by TheRover on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 07:05:11 AM PDT