This diary is about what pisses me off about the way kos is attacking advocacy groups, as such. That is, not just disagreeing with their positions, of course, but disagreeing with the fact that their loyalty is to their issues over party. He does not understand why an advocacy group MUST be independent, that's its source of credibility. That's why Sierra Club can convince a conservative of something that a Democrat cannot, if that conservative is environmentalist at all.
Armando thinks I'm just being contrarian, but that's not it.
I am going to explain quite simply.
YES, I think it's a bit of a loss to "my side" for the Sierra Club to endorse a Republican, a loss politically, for the viable party I prefer, for my coalition even, and in fact, certainly, for Chafee isn't in my coalition.
Yes, it's a "loss". BUT: I don't want to rectify that loss by starving the Sierra Club, because they pop up ALL the time, in every community, protecting the environment. I see them do it with my own eyes, time and again. Fighting for the environment, they fucking do that. Does anyone want to deny THAT?
The way I consider that loss balanced is that it's in balance to the fact that conservative position advocacy groups do the same thing. When the NRA gives Dean an "A", that's the balance. When an anti-tax group certifies the fiscal responsibility of some Dem, THAT'S the balance of the Sierra Club or NARAL "endorsing" a Republican at times.
These groups MUST be true to principles, not parties, there is no other way to stay honest, there is no way to put party over principle and REMAIN PRINCIPLED. People know this, they sense it, thus, to be partisan is to lose credibility.
That is my belief, that is my philosophical knowledge, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to place party over principle and remain principled. These groups are here to help parties remain principled. To make them be principled by holding principle ABOVE the party, over the party, rather than the other way around.
If you destroy these groups by folding them in, so they are merely part of the party, you will lose the last bits of principle from the party altogether. This is, in fact, why these groups are separate from the party, and why the Democratic caucuses, e.g. an "environmental caucus" is not doing the work of the Sierra Club and never could.
I DON'T WANT THAT.
----
I don't have time to read much right away, but I promise to answer any complaints, etc. I didn't really have time to write this, but there. Maybe that will clear it up for the few people that care for it to be cleared up.
The proper Democratic partisan response (to my way of thinking) would be: "We understand this endorsement represents the Sierra Club's deal and faith that Senator Chafee as an individual will vote with their interests. We're not sure about that, some years he does not vote with them well, but even if so, we feel the Sierra Club is making a grave mistake. We're certain that the voters will side with us in this and understand how important it is for the American forests and environment that the Republicans not have a majority in Congress that Chafee helps maintain. We praise the work the Sierra Club does for the environment and are proud to count them as our allies in general, and to be recognized by them as a party with the much better environmentalist record, and we understand they are not, after all, an organ of the party. We are in common cause with the Sierra Club but it's clear the environmental voter should not vote for Republicans if they expect the environment to actually be protected by their Congress."