Skip to main content

The other day Bill McKibben from 350.org came here to raise money for a campaign based on the outrageous denial of their new Senator Brown ad campaign that they wanted to run on the Boston area MBTA. Outrage I say! Send money to counter this outrage!

We were told that the ad was, and I quote, "too controversial", and that is what had people all aerated. But nobody will tell me who said "too controversial". I have asked Bill for clarification, and have checked back repeatedly, but he's not responding. I don't think this was what the MBTA said, based on what I read at BlueMassGroup. It looked to me like a pretty standard rejection of a politician-based ad. Which is their policy:

MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo pointed to the agency's policy which bars ads that refer to any candidate for public office.

As I looked into this story more, it seemed to me the outrage was a bit...affected. As Boston area residents relayed in that diary--and every local I've spoken too since--we can't remember having seen a politician-specific ad on the T.

But as I researched it more, the story got even more twisted. Turns out this 350.org campaign is also going after the other Senator Brown--Sherrod Brown. I checked Bill's other diaries and I don't see any mention of that since the effort seems to have launched. I also checked the Sherrod Brown tag to see if anyone came by to tell this community. Huh. Nothin'. Well, not on this matter. Seems there was a recent diary suggesting Sherrod Brown's chances are looking better than they were at some prior point. So now would be a good time to go after him, I guess.

Why is 350.org going after Sen. Sherrod Brown?

According to their website, 350.org is going after Sherrod Brown for his vote on the Clean Air Act, and on the fact that he took over $100,000 from dirty energy since 1999, data as provided by Dirty Energy Money. Let's look at the worst offenders over at Dirty Energy:

Photobucket

For the record, Dirty Money says Sherrod Brown took $105,000.

I tried to find a downloadable list of the data to sort and rank, but I couldn't find one. It may exist, but I ended up just using the Wikipedia list of current US Senators and searched for each one's contributions since 1999. It's possible I have an error of transcription here or there, but on the whole I think I copied the data right. Anyone is free to check my work by doing the same thing with their data. I sorted by dollar amount since 1999 (their metric at 350.org). Sherrod Brown came in at number 71. That's right, 70 more Senators took "Dirty Energy Money" since 1999.

But ok--350.org is particularly dismayed by the EPA vote. They didn't link to it, so I'm entirely sure of the vote they refer to. Does anyone have the text of that and the roll call? I'm disappointed if he really is on the wrong side of this. But it turns out even my favorite pols are not always voting the way I want.

But let's not confuse that vote with the one where Sherrod Brown voted against barring the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gasses. (Scott Brown voted for that, with some Dems not named Brown--including some who took WAY more of that dirty money).

Which side are you on?

Did you know the other day when Bill came by asking for money that this campaign also targeted a Dem? I didn't. I had to find out from my local newspaper. MBTA rejects anti-Brown ad from environmental group

The organization will instead hire bicyclists to ride around town with the ad on the July Fourth weekend, Haigh said. It is lodging a similar campaign that takes aim at Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat.
Would you have been so poutraged if it had been an ad for Sherrod Brown? How about this ad--copied from their site. I highlighted with the yellow arrow the dollar value that they emphasize in the last year: $3,464,689. Makes it look like he took that money, doesn't it? But that is FAR from the truth. If the Dirty Money values are correct, the number for Brown is $105,000 since 1999. That's somewhat different, isn't it?

I think this 350.org campaign is deceptive and nasty, and really not defensible. It is not a constructive use of the money donated to their organization. And it's certainly not what I signed up for at this site.

Which side are you on? I'm certainly not on the side that does Republican work for them, by taking out ads in states like Ohio that assault progressive politicians. I don't think that's constructive.

You are free to give your money to this campaign, of course. Do you think going after a vulnerable Dem in Ohio is the best use of your donation dollars? Someone who voted for the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses?  

If you have to target Dems, how about the ones that took way more money since 1999, and voted to block the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gasses? Is this really the best use of our time and money?

I know this isn't new. I once did a diary called STFW, Stop the Fucking Witch-hunt, after the front page and Slinkerwink had their anti-Capuano campaigns going. (By the way--Mike Capuano lost that race to Martha Coakley--how's that working for us now?) And maybe they really believed you can get more progressive candidates by...er...taking out progressives. But it's really not something I'm finding effective. YMMV.

Originally posted to mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 02:20 PM PDT.

Also republished by Massachusetts Kosmopolitans.

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

  •  You don't have to like every vote (43+ / 0-)

    or every donation of a politician. But is it really too much to ask to be a little bit strategic on this? Can someone really defend the use of these donation dollars and explain how this moves environmental legislation forward?

    I know, it's gonna be hard for you to figure out if I'm a shill for Monsanto, or for Big Coal, or part of the totalitarian scientific oligarchy, I'm sure. I'm expecting some excellent and creative fiction in the comments.

    Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

    by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 02:01:36 PM PDT

  •  He's Ranked #1 Most Liberal Dem At One Time Or (18+ / 0-)

    another.

    There's your explanation.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 02:23:07 PM PDT

  •  What jumped out at me (8+ / 0-)

    is how typical it is for enviros to think that a message that works on the coasts and to an extent the West, is going to transfer so easily to other parts of the country.

    When enviros do this, they tend to lose.

    When they tailor their messaging (which you can do without selling out), their chances of winning increase.

  •  So I looked at his votes on April 6th (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville, James Allen

    This is all of them, from here: http://www.govtrack.us/...

    Senate Roll #57
    Apr 6, 2011 6:01 PM
        Nay   
    Coburn Amdt. No. 273
    Amendment Agreed to 64-36 (3/5 required)

    Senate Roll #56
    Apr 6, 2011 5:42 PM
        Yea   
    Inouye Amdt. No. 286
    Amendment Rejected 57-43 (3/5 required)

    Senate Roll #55
    Apr 6, 2011 5:26 PM
        Yea   
    Coburn Amdt. No. 281
    Amendment Agreed to 100-0 (3/5 required)

    Senate Roll #54
    Apr 6, 2011 5:10 PM
        Nay   
    McConnell Amdt. No. 183
    Amendment Rejected 50-50 (3/5 required)

    Senate Roll #53
    Apr 6, 2011 4:50 PM
        Nay   
    Rockefeller Amdt. No. 215
    Amendment Rejected 12-88 (3/5 required)

    Senate Roll #52
    Apr 6, 2011 4:33 PM
        Yea   
    Stabenow Amdt. No. 277
    Amendment Rejected 7-93 (3/5 required)

    Senate Roll #51
    Apr 6, 2011 4:05 PM
        Nay   
    Baucus Amdt. No. 236
    Amendment Rejected 7-93 (3/5 required)

    Someone who knows more can maybe find the one they mean in that ad...I guess #52?  

  •  Congratulations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RainyDay, koNko

    You may have found something wrong with 350.org. It's not an easy task and they are really trying to bring the issues to the people over the denial of the elected.

    Considering how rare it is to find anything wrong with 350.org. that's headline news. "Is this really the best use of our time and money?" is a legitimate question when we consider how the Democrats as a whole have stood up the the dirty money contributes. I mean look at all the progress we got when they were in total charge of the government.

    But I have a question, if "sorted by dollar amount since 1999" Sherrod Brown's dirty money coming in at number 71, did you take into account that he has only been collecting as a US Senator since January 3, 2007?

    I like to consider the option that Sherrod Brown does something to satisfy 350.org rather that we should come up with ways to correct  350.org.

    I guess I really am a concern troll because I'm more concerned with what the Democratic leadership actually does instead of going out looking for places to knock grassroots organizations that are really trying to get something done.  

    And then there is the fact that I don't really give a shit about some Senator who constantly sends me emails that never actually commit to anything but "stopping Republicans." I care about the planet, the people and the animals living on the planet, just like 350.org.  

    •  Yeah, but I used THEIR metric (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, Ahianne, askew

      I considered dividing over the course of their tenure. But decided to use the 350.org language and number.

      Perhaps you'd take a look at Joe Manchin's page for a comparison:

      http://dirtyenergymoney.org/...

      Right--Sherrod Brown was the way to go. Money well spent.

      Watch that knee-jerk, you'll get tendinitis from that.

      Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

      by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 03:02:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I not jerking any knee (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, aliasalias, RainyDay, koNko

        That's a DailyKos exclusive, that an stretching as far as you can to prove everything is the fault of somebody other than the Democratic leadership.

        What is the impact of this ad that is so important to you?

        How about increasing the impact of excellent work?  

        Dear Friends,

        Is President Obama going to miss his own deadline for re-installing solar panels on the White House roof?

        Last October, after a campaign led by 350.org, the Obama Administration committed to installing a new set of solar panels on the White House roof by the end of Spring 2011. With ten days until June 21st, the first day of summer, the roof is still bare.

        Can you take a minute to sign a letter to President Obama reminding him to meet his deadline to put solar on the White House?

        Last fall, 350.org rescued a solar panel that President Carter had installed on the White House roof (only to have it removed by President Reagan) from its exile at Unity College in Maine and drove it back to the White House with a request that Obama install a new set.

        The administration refused at first, but a month later Secretary of Energy Chu said at a conference, “I’m pleased to announce that, by the end of this spring, there will be solar panels and a solar hot water heater on the roof of the White House.”

        We know that the pressure from the 40,000 of you that signed our original petition made a real impact last fall. Now, we need to show the administration that we won’t let them off the hook.

        The White House will try and brush this deadline under the rug unless we can show that the public is still paying attention and eager for President Obama to put solar panels back on the roof (and then tell us how he will put solar on rooftops across America).

        When we asked President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives to install a new set of solar panels on the roof of his presidential residence, he got up there just a few weeks later and helped install the 48 new panels himself. So, we’re confident that if the White House really wanted to make a strong push for renewable energy, they could have the panels up by June 21st, the first day of summer.

        After all, a little home improvement isn’t nearly as complicated as bailing out the banks or saving the auto industry. And according to our friends at the solar company Sungevity, the cost of the installation would be earned back with savings on the electric bill in the first five years, so an installation makes fiscal sense, as well.

        We don’t need President Obama to put on a tool-belt and climb on the roof like President Nasheed, but we do need him to start leading on climate and energy. Putting up a new set of solar panels is no replacement for an ambitious climate policy, but it would be an important sign that the administration acknowledges that it needs to do more to support clean energy.

        Click here to add your name to the letter we're sending to President Obama.

        Many thanks,

        May Boeve

        P.S. This is a situation where a large, public groundswell can really tip the balance, so we need to spread the word far and wide. Can you share the message with a couple of clicks on Facebook and Twitter?

        You sure can't find any from the Democratic leadership, so take a look where there is something real going on and support that. Maybe then we will see some progress.

        •  Well, if you understand the strategy (0+ / 0-)

          so well, please tell me why it was Brown and not the other 6 who voted for this dreadful item (that had no chance of passing anyway).

          And I have to say I'm not really keen on online petitions. Also fruitless donation drivers.

          I think stupid gestures, ginned-up poutrage, and petitions are a giant waste of time and energy. And unfortunately divert dollars from things that might actually work. And they may backfire--as Firedoglake's efforts to smear Mike Capuano did.

          But I find that deceivers are not good allies in the long run either. It's hard to know when they are going to turn on you. (That said, I'm really enjoying the foodies fight each other on Whole Foods.)

          But yeah--save the animals with that petition. I hate animals, that degree in biology I have was a total accident.

          Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

          by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 03:23:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you for real (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            koNko

            You found one little nitpick, then drummed it up so you can call 350.org "deceivers." You want deception just wait for any member of the Democratic leadership to open their mouths.

            So now you can give me a lecture on what does and dosen't work and throw in your biology for good measure? Please it is a simple matter of an action organization vs. an inaction organization and you picked your side while I picked mine.    

            •  No (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bronte17, Ahianne, askew

              They are being deceptive on the T campaign, and then totally dissembling on Sherrod Brown--that's two this week. That dollar value in the ad is reprehensible.

              And I don't think assaults on progressive politicians in vulnerable races is a "nitpick". You have quite an interesting definition of that apparently.

              But if this what they are doing here--and we have the evidence to see the underlying facts--do you know that they've been right on all the other stuff? Or have we just not looked carefully yet?

              Shall I keep looking?

              Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

              by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 03:39:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Your verbiage says it all (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eddie C

            Poutrage your own ass.

            Buck-up and stop whining. If this is so damaging to Brown he can take the opportunity to clarify his position on the issues and if he doesn't think it merits his attention then I guess 350 has his number right.

            What about my Daughter's future?

            by koNko on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 10:40:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  350.org does excellent work (6+ / 0-)

          and Bill McKibbon is the greatest. I have nothing but the strongest admiration for him and the work of 350.org.

          BUT someone's priorities are back-assward here with this attack on Sherrod Brown.


          I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

          by bronte17 on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 03:39:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't dislike Sherrod Brown. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oregonj, aliasalias, koNko

            Is the Clean Air Act under attack? Yes.

            Did Sherrod Brown co-sponsor an amendment To suspend, for 2 years, any Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, to exempt American agriculture from greenhouse gas regulations, and to increase the number of companies eligible to participate in the successful Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit Program? Yes.

            Can Sherrod Brown defend himself from a few posters on Ohio streets without the help of mem from somerville?  Yes.

            Is the conclusion that 350.org "does Republican work for them" and is not "the best use of your donation dollars" based on something she admits that she dosen't know what vote they refer to a crock of shit?  Yes.

            I'm not against Sherrod Brown and I'm certain that Bill McKibbon is not either but I watched Sherrod Brown's brand get diluted, less input into the national debate and contribution solicitation letters that now only offer "defense against Republicans."

            I'm not buying into this "you gotta believe" bullshit around here anymore and if 350.org is working to keep a Democrat honest, well someone has to do it. I know where the place it to whine and complain about any sort of action that dosen't pretend Democrats are perfect, right here.

            But as much as nobody wants to hear it, Sherrod Brown is an adult, he can straighten out the problems with 350.org or defend his actions as he sees fit.  

            Anyway we defended the Democrats like they were our children from the beginning of this website until now and look how far it has gotten us. Someone going after 350.org is the real bullshit.  

            •  So you are saying (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ezekial 23 20, bronte17
              Can Sherrod Brown defend himself from a few posters on Ohio streets without the help of mem from somerville?  Yes.

              This doesn't have much impact? But you support it anyway? Hey--it's your money if you are a donor.

              And you think it's

              working to keep a Democrat honest, well someone has to do it

              But working to keep activists honest is bad!!1!!1

              Gotcha. Honesty is only for you to mete out.

              And I do understand the vote now--it was an item that had no chance in hell of passing, and didn't pass, and has no effect on the EPA. But somehow you think assaulting him in his district will make him behave better. Yeah. I really don't understand that part now, actually.

              Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

              by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 04:55:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One quibble. His state, not district. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mem from somerville

                He's still a Senator ;)

              •  Circle jerk! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                koNko

                First off, putting words in someone else's mouth is bullshit. Where did I write that i support going after Sherrod Brown? I support 350.org. I'd explain why but you are not listening. You don't give a shit about a grassroots organization, don't believe in petitions and have accepted the fact that politicians are unaddressable.

                You freely admitted that you had no idea what the issue was? So the question is "Why write about something where you are clueless?" I know the answer. You are a member of complainabouteveryoneelse.com. After the two miserable years of total failure on climate leadership under Democratic control and with the nation debate going downhill you need someone else to be wrong.

                Now that I did the work and explained it to you, there is a new excuse "it was an item that had no chance in hell of passing." Really so if bullshit dosen't pass than it dosen't matter? Perhaps it is no longer even bullshit.

                What do I try to communicate with a Kossack? Your job is defend dems and go after everyone else. Nothing makes sense to you, nothing ever will unless the end result is sunshine coming out of a dem's ass.  People trying to address government is a waste of time to you and yours, the Obamacrats. So discussion is a waste of time. You won grassroots sucks, people with a "D" behind their name are infallible.  

                Hey nobody knows better than I. Every capitulation is rationalized here and anybody who stands up to the capitulation is the enemy. You just proved that by not even understanding the issue and getting right to the complaining about someone else.

                I, who you immediately labeled "kneejerk." would have done the research. Back before I figured out that nobody here reads past the title anyway, I would have contacted both parties and found out what I was talking about. But that's so old school.

                •  350.org didn't think it was important (0+ / 0-)

                  to tell people what vote it was on, but they wanted to take everyone's money anyway.

                  In fact, the more I found out about how asinine this assault was, the worse looking it was at every turn. I had looked up the votes but couldn't believe they were going after something as ridiculous as that amendment, so I figured that can't be right, that I must have missed something. They can't be that stupid?  But you have shown me that they were--thanks so much for that! I do feel better knowing I was even more right than I realized.

                  I told you in the diary that I asked McKibben for clarification. But he didn't respond.

                  First off, putting words in someone else's mouth is bullshit....
                  You don't give a shit about a grassroots organization, don't believe in petitions and have accepted the fact that politicians are unaddressable.

                  Do you write irony for a living now? You have real skill there.

                  And good luck with whatever party you end up in.  I'm sure it will be very rewarding for you.

                  Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

                  by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 06:26:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Here's some stuff you should see (0+ / 0-)

                  on internet petitions:

                  Snopes: Internet Petitions

                  Claim: Signing and circulating online petitions is an effective way of remedying issues.

                  Status: False.

                  ...no more than outpourings of outrage....

                  There was another great article written by an activist to said he used them only to get emails for donation letters. I thought I had it bookmarked but I can't find it.  I'll keep looking, because I'm sure you are eager to know the reality.

                  Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

                  by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 06:56:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, I found the one (0+ / 0-)

                  that was very interesting:

                  Online Petitions are a Sham

                  It's really interesting, written by an activist.

                  Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

                  by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 07:24:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  So what is the political impact so far? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eddie C

                And if it is great, why doesn't Brown speak up and set the record straight?

                So called Liberals who vote against progressive causes should expect to get challanged and out under pressure.

                US environmental policy is noew going backward and the US faces the prospect of be so late to develop and produce clean energy technology it will completely miss the boat and become increasingly less economically competative.

                But that doesn't matter, right?

                What about my Daughter's future?

                by koNko on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 10:50:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This vote did NOTHING (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bronte17

                  to drive climate policy backwards. Zero. Zip. Nada.

                  It had no impact on the EPA. Even Republicans didn't vote for it--that's how out-of-the-loop and inconsequential it was.

                  My problem isn't only what this did to Brown. It's a group that is totally dissembling on a backwater vote that didn't pass. Who is to say they aren't coming after my Dems next on some goofy amendment vote? Who is to say they aren't coming back to take money from progressives to do it again? Money that should be used on the real enemies of climate--not someone who voted to retain the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses.

                  Their zealotry is blinding their judgment. That's a bad place to be. It's unfortunately really common among activist groups.

                  Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

                  by mem from somerville on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:13:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  they are consistent (0+ / 0-)

          They attack Democrats and go after trivia. And they lie. The WH was not reacting to their stupid campaign to put Jimmy Carter's water heater back on the roof.

      •  But this diary makes an important point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bronte17

        We don't have to deride all of what 350.org does in order to question it.

        And the diarist brings to the fore a vital question that seems in need of an answer:  Why is this particular person being targeted?  I'm not a member of 350.org, but if I were (and I might become one) I would call and write the organization about this.

        The issue is important because no political organization is flawless.

        And, on the issue of climate change, advocating the wrong policies can be worse than doing nothing at all.

        For example, many (including the national Sierra Club and the NRDC) have advocated that natural gas be used as a bridge fuel, because, in its ideal state, it burns cleaner than oil.

        So they have enabled Pickens -- the tycoon who swiftboated Kerry -- to make his point, and perhaps make billions -- off of his investments in natural gas.

        They have also made the progressive media virtually blind to the real problems that are associated with natural gas.  Not merely the water contamination, the air pollution (i.e. benzene) the radiation, the water usage, etc. etc.

        -- but to the fact that in use, natural gas actually makes things worse.  Studies have shown this. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/...  http://www.youtube.com/...

        So a great deal of harm has been done by essentially good organizations.

        Not because the organizations are "evil" -- but they are constructed by humans, and humans mistakes.

        My guess is that 350.org is making a big mistake here -- and need to hear about it.  What's more, they will want to hear about it.  McGibbins is, as someone noted, a great man.

        •  Yeah, I think this is a terrible strategy (0+ / 0-)

          and I would like them to reconsider it here, and not use it in the future.

          I cannot fathom how they think it helps to show Sherrod the light--a deceptive ad in a district is a way to make friends and encourage good behavior? Seriously? Does this work?

          And I hate to see money wasted on stunts. Money that could be going to something effective.

          Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

          by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 04:44:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Single issue and single vote efforts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mem from somerville

            make me queasy.

            Votes are funny things, there might 15 or more votes that effect a bill. Amendments, procedural, etc.

            You have to look for a pattern, does a person vote to weaken the bill, repeatedly, but end up voting for the final watered down version? Just so they can say they voted for it, only after voting 12 times to destroy the bill.....

            Its very easy to manipulate interest groups and PACs that hand out scores based on a narrow selection of key votes.

            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:06:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Sherrod Brown is one of the strongest union (9+ / 0-)

      supporters that we have in the Senate.

      He's a good man.

      He has been labeled a "dirty air" politician by the Koch Bros or someone who wants to destroy his support, but you need to look at the bigger picture to see WTF is going on with these innuendos against him.

      Dirty Secrets has a list and it shows Sherrod Brown taking $59,000 in "pollutor" contributions and $0 from the Koch Bros.

      Relatively speaking... Let's take a look at some other Senators to get a feel for this.

      John McCain got $2.7 MILLION from polluters. But nothing from Koch.

      James Inhofe got almost $2 MILLION from polluters and $63,000 from Koch. Inhofe got more from Koch alone than Sherrod Brown received from all the "polluters" contributions.

      Kay Bailey Hutchison of TX got OVER $2 MILLION from polluters and $6k from Koch.

      John Cornyn of TX got almost $2 MILLION from polluters and $26k from Koch.

      Lisa Murkowski got $1.2 MILLION from polluters and $25k from the Koch Bros.

      Pat Roberts of Kansas got $500 MILLION from polluters and almost $100K from the Koch Bros .

      Mitch McConnell got $1.5 MILLION from polluters and $35k from the Koch Bros.

      David Vitter got over $1 MILLION from polluters and $14k from the Koch Bros.

      Roy Blunt of Missouri got $1.2 MILLION from polluters and $56k from the Koch Bros.

      Richard Burr of NC got $1.2 MILLION from polluters and $12k from Koch.

      Mary Landrieu got $1.3 MILLION and this Democratic Senator also received $21.5k from the Koch Bros.

      You can go down that list and find Democratic Senators who are listed as NOT being "Dirty Air" politicians and yet they took 10 times the money that Sherrod Brown took AND they took Koch money.

      This attack against Sherrod Brown is bullshit.


      I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

      by bronte17 on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 03:37:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sherrod Brown is a good guy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mem from somerville

      Isn't the problem with the 'taking money from an industry' type statistics, is that individual donors who work for an industry get lumped in?  So Brown rakes in max contribs from 50 high rollers who happen to also work in energy, and voila, instantly he's 'dirty', even if it just happens that they run in the same social circles and donated as friends, not to sway him.

      350 may do great work elsewhere, but they're way off base here.

  •  Brown should be primaried (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko

    This would be much more constructive to getting these weak-kneed Democrats to back a core party policy, and the President's firm but tough stance on the Clean Air Act.

    And here is the list of  Dem Representatives that should be primaried for undercutting the President and the party on the Clean Air Act.

    Barrow

    Bishop

    Boren

    Boswell

    Chandler

    Costa

    Costello

    Critz

    Cuellar

    Donnely

    Holden

    Mathesson

    Mcintyre

    Peterson

    Rahall

    Ross

    Schrader

    Sewell

    "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

    by oregonj on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 03:19:50 PM PDT

  •  Let me put it this way (3+ / 0-)

    On her show Rachel Maddow told Sen. Sharrod Brown and his wife columnist Connie Schultz that her parents told her when they pass they wanted Sen. Brown and Ms.Schultz to adopt her. Anyone that goes after Republicans they're trying to knock off. First Anthony Weiner, not Sharrod. Sharrod does a good job and Limbaugh actually thought he was Black. Now that's a good recommendation.

    Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

    by kid funkadelic on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 04:25:21 PM PDT

  •  now I'm confused (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville, Eric K, askew

    I'm a rabid greenie and totally behind 350.org, or at least I was until I read this diary.  Going after progressive Dems is insane.

  •  Here is some context (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville, bronte17

    The Columbus Dispatch:  Brown among senators voting against EPA curbs

    With the vote of Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Senate last week turned back efforts by conservative lawmakers to prohibit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations to restrict the emissions of greenhouse gases thought by some to cause global warming.
    ...

    Brown backed a more-modest measure championed by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., that would have delayed enforcement of new EPA rules by two years but would permit the EPA to continue planning on issuing the rules. That amendment was rejected.

    Meghan Dubyak, a Brown spokeswoman, said he "introduced a common-sense alternative that would delay the enforcement of new rules for two years while still allowing EPA to continue its planning and information-gathering and allowing the manufacturing industry to gear up for the clean-energy supply chain and to reduce carbon emissions."

    So he voted against efforts to eviscerate the EPA while supporting another Democrat's (is 350 going after her too?) alternative that is less than ideal obviously but clearly had no chance of passing anyway.  The end result being that a corporate-Republican effort to block good EPA regulations was stopped.  This is a good thing.

    Seems 350.org is wrongheaded on this one now that I've looked into it.  

    If they want to go after an anti-environment Dem why not Landrieu (D - Exxon Mobil)?

    •  Thanks for taking a real look (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew

      instead of just lashing out like some did.

      Yes, that's exactly what I found. He supported letting EPA regulate greenhouse gasses--the vote that mattered. But he voted on a completely ridiculous amendment that was going nowhere anyway--which I am sure was just a gesture for him to cover his ass with at some point in the future. I don't like that, but I understand why they do that.

      But exactly--there were 7 Dems voting on that goofy amendment. Yet they are only targeting Sherrod.  

      It's really strange. There are plenty of other better targets out there.

      Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

      by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 06:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me ask you one question? (0+ / 0-)

        Will Sherrod Brown think harder about consequences next time he votes to support a Blue Dog compromise on gutting our clean air protections?

        "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

        by oregonj on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 07:08:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you think (0+ / 0-)

          he wasn't thinking hard enough, but voted to retain EPA's right to regulate greenhouse gasses--the vote that mattered.

          And you think that 350.org poking him with a stick makes him want to work with them more?

          Is this some kind of reverse psychology...because I'm not following you.

          It doesn't make me want to work with 350.org. But feel free to check with him.

          I've answered your question--please now go back up and answer the one I had for you--because you seem to have missed it.

          Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

          by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 07:20:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gladly. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eddie C

            None of the votes  would have likely ended EPA's authority - probably a veto was waiting.  

            So the answer to your question is yes - Brown is now more willing to 'work' to protect the EPA's authority when it really matters - he knows there is a price to pay for crossing a line.

            This is politics - not a group hug. Believe me, 'working' with a politician is not exactly the same as trying to be best friends. Especially on an issue of this magnitude.

            "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

            by oregonj on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 07:54:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, puh-leeez..... (0+ / 0-)

              You can say with a straight face "this is politics - not a group hug" --yet when I tell you that pissing off a politician does not make him want to work with you you claim it does?

              Man. You are perfect for this organization. You have the reverse bizarro thing down.

              What is in the organic food you guys are eating?  

              Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

              by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 08:07:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                Now I'm really confused.

                So   pressure from the progressive left on core Dem issues doesn't help move the party and influence direction?  And providing cover on the left for politicians to make individual shifts on votes is useless?

                What  is it you said you were smoking?

                "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

                by oregonj on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 08:23:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, you are confused. (0+ / 0-)

                  Punishing a Senator for a completely insignificant vote--while he voted your way on the significant item, possibly at more risk to himself--is a bad strategy.

                  It does not make people want to work with you more in the future. Do you really think this method is working for the queen of punishment, Jane Hamsher? Is she really getting the stuff she wants?

                  It really can't be any clearer than that.

                  Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

                  by mem from somerville on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 08:51:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sherrod is a swing vote on climate. (0+ / 0-)

                    You have no evidence that Brown  is looking at the climate movement and now saying: That ad was so damaging that I am going to pay them back by voting  with the Republicans on killing the EPA.

                    Many of us think this type of message will make it more likely for Brown to take the  hard vote on climate in the future.

                    I enjoyed this constructive  discussion and  respect our differences of opinion on this.

                    "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

                    by oregonj on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 09:17:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You have no evidence (0+ / 0-)

                      that it worked your way either. "That ad was so enlightening that now I'm going to kiss Bill McKibben on the lips".

                      But it's beyond that--if I was a Dem in Ohio and 350.org did that to my best shot to retain the Senate seat--I would hate them and spurn them in any future work on the streets. I would not want them at voter reg drives, I would not want them canvassing with me, nothing.

                      You seem to think this ad is some kind of laser beam on Sherrod's behavior for good--without other possible consequences.

                      Your vision is pretty narrow.

                      Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

                      by mem from somerville on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:06:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Baffling and disappointing. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 06:45:23 PM PDT

  •  Ah, knee-capping your own. Why am I not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville, askew

    surprised ?

    One bitter fact is two bit hacks populate the third rate fourth estate who are truly the fifth columnists. So, how did Obama piss you off today ?
    Call the media when they Lie

    by amk for obama on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 07:01:18 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like 350.org has the bug (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville, Eric K

    That bug that makes you arbitrarily go after someone on your side so that you can demonstrate to people on the other side that you don't take sides.  The White House has had this bug for a couple of years now.

    It's better to curse the darkness than light a candle. --Whoever invented blogs, c.1996

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 07:31:31 PM PDT

  •  There is a simple solution (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oregonj

    Brown can use this opportunity to cleary stae where he stands on environmental issues including his positions on green stimulus measures that could produce jobs for his constituents.

    If he does not support these measures, why support Brown?

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 10:23:45 PM PDT

  •  I looked at the 350 link (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville

    Very little or rather no explaining on the so called vote. Zero context, no citation.

    http://www.350.org/...

    According to DirtyEnergyMoney.org, Sen. Brown has received over $100,000 from polluting industries since 1999.

    OMG, thats $8333.00 a year from BAD GUYS.

    Yo, 350.org, gimme a break, this is fooking real weak, if thats all you got.

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:18:23 AM PDT

    •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox

      "voted to gut the Clean Air Act" makes it sound like a vote that actually passed--when it was a hopeless amendment that went nowhere and never had a chance.

      And it was clearly designed to mislead on the numbers.

      The more I look at it the worse it is--and it's defenders make zero sense too.

      If I was a Dem in Ohio, I'd be further pissed that this organization pulled this stunt. It's not just Brown--this has the opportunity to alienate people otherwise inclined to like 350.org.

      It's a #FAIL on every level, despite the fantasy the supporters of this ad are constructing.

      Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

      by mem from somerville on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:01:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I worked in 2 Congressional campaigns (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mem from somerville

        Learned the hard way about citing one vote out to use against our opposition. Often an extreme right winger will vote for amendments and such to weaken a bill, then vote for the bill in the final vote, so they can claim "I'm a moderate, I voted for that bill".

        I learned to track the history of the bill and look at every vote.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 04:09:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If anyone from 350.org comes by (0+ / 0-)

    I'd love to have the answers to these questions:

    • The quotes around the phrase "too controversial" on the Scott Brown ad discussion and media coverage: who exactly said that, and can you please provide the full context?
    • Why was Sherrod targeted for his vote, but not the other Dems who voted on that?
    • Why did you think that hopeless and unpassed amendment vote necessitated your response? And again, why him and not the others?
    • Can you tell me exactly how you decided to go after Sherrod? What were the criteria besides that vote and the dirty money he took? Because other Dems did the same vote, and many took more cash since 1999.
    • Why would you choose this vote for your assault, rather than one that actually had some effect on legislation?
    • Why do you think it's fair to tar Sherrod with all the dirty money last year--when much of that money went to Republicans?
    • Why didn't you disclose to this community that your fundraising campaign also involved an ad to assault Sherrod Brown?

    Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

    by mem from somerville on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:40:08 PM PDT

  •  Bill McKibben is a self-promoting hack (0+ / 0-)

    He has been going around the country attacking Obama for years now and apparently has now decided to help other Republican candidates.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site