Login Here 
Kos tells us that despite the fact that the Sierra Club only gives Lincoln Chafee a 20% approval rating for his voting record, they are endorsing him. Presumably because he "bucks his party" (and if he's ever done so in a meaningful way where it wasn't all for show on a useless vote, I'd like to see it). But the Sierra Club sure is enthusiastic about him, and they are also going to put their muscle behind getting him re-elected:
Along with the endorsement, the Sierra Club will lend its volunteer strength to Senator Chafee's campaign.
"We pledge to do all we can to help ensure Senator Chafee is re elected," concluded Buckser. " Sierra Club volunteers will work with the campaign to contact voters about his exemplary environmental record. We look forward to a victory party for the environment on election night and to many more years of Lincoln Chafee fighting for the environment as a U.S. Senator."
This is quite possibly even worse than NARAL's continued support for Chafee who only has a 65% voting record last year on pro-choice issues (and if you count his cloture votes on judges -- which NARAL did not -- it's even worse).
I know these organizations get really excited when the GOP takes a wrecking ball to their causes because the donations come flooding in. I'm becoming exceptionally piqued that they manipulate people's legitimate fears in order to raise cash and perpetuate themselves with little or no regard to the cause they pretend to serve.
If the Democrats are going to retake the Senate in the next election and prevent another Strip Search Sammy from getting on the Supreme Court, Chafee holds one of the key seats that must be retaken. Are the Sierra Club and NARAL doing their best to ensure a permanent Republican majority that will keep them in the chips in perpetuity and leave the rest of us at the mercy of a narcissistic child with his finger on the nuclear football, his power to destroy unchecked by any oversight?
It seems like they very much are.
Share This 
Spotlight
Fitz, Feingold, and FDL!
I have just given up any thought of supporting this organization because of this supprising endorsement. The wallet once open, now closed..
I love this bit of descriptive writing wrt to Roberts by Jim Hightower:
When I look at today’s Congress, I think of the scarecrow, the tin-man, and the lion in The Wizard of Oz: no brain, no heart, and no courage.
This bunch has cravenly caved in to the Bush-Cheney regime’s power grab to impose an imperial presidency on the U.S. For example, when it was revealed last December that Bush was not merely a lawbreaker, but had repeatedly flaunted the law for four years by issuing secret and illegal orders to spy on the American people, what did Congress do? At first, there was much huffing and puffing, indignantly demanding a deep investigation into the criminality of the secret snooping.
But then, Pat Roberts, the pathetically weak-kneed chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, abruptly canceled plans for a Senate investigation and ran to the White House waving a surrender hankie. He came out beaming, comically claiming that he’d negotiated a deal with Dick “Buckshot” Cheney. Roberts said that, in exchange for the Senate giving up its crucial investigative function, Cheney graciously agreed to give the Senate an oversight role in Bush’s illegal spy program.
http://www.austinchronicle.com.....tower.html
oops– that was supposed to go on the last thread– sorry!
As noted in Crashing the Gate, these single-issue organizations (the organizations, not the issues) can be detrimental to the overall health of the Democratic Party as we try to get back to a majority status. Perhaps it’s time for the party to say to these groups either you’re with us on this goal or you can just go and play with the Republicans. The Party doesn’t need their endorsement to have progressive positions on the environment or abortion. If the candidates state their progressive positions clearly, then the voters shouldn’t need the lazy way out of just checking the endorsements. It’s an insult for the Sierra Club to endorse someone with a 20% support record. I’m telling that the next time they call me for more money.
This is a perfect example of progressives derailing the train by focusing on one issue. I wonder if it would help to send the Sierra Club, NARL, etc. copies of “Crashing the Gate”?
Are the Sierra Club and NARAL doing their best to ensure a permanent Republican majority that will keep them in the chips in perpetuity
Just call them the Martyr Complex Club. They’re like beggars who amputate fingers to shame people into giving them cash.
I am originally from RI, and I loved his dad as Senator, and he was alright when he started. But after Alito, he lost any bona fides to the RI voters.
I am working hard on my mom and her friends to vote the bum out.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042006Z.shtml
^^ Dirt on Rove
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
^^ Impeachment Campaign
Perhaps these dems think that they can turn Chafee R into a real Chafee D even after the election. May they think he will be emboldened only THEN to walk the plank and leave the sinking repug ship.
How interesting it would be if the dems knew that and gave him no or even mild support for “mostly” mild reasons… the repubs would support him, the dems would not waste lots of effort to defeat him and then… amazing.. he switches parties after the election… Sort of like a “stealth” candidate.
I seem to recall they did try to woo him over to D a while back, but with Cheney Bush so vindicative he may be waiting for calmer waters to see a new course. The congress will look a lot different in 2007 and the repub nasties will be jumping water in a oil frying pan and getting nothing for all the sizzle.
I think the congress will go D as cheny bush and rummy… and condi drag them to the bottom. Chafee will then make his move. I predict… you decide.
Rhode Island has the worst Bush Approval Rating in the nation. How can this weasel have a chance?
I wonder if this is like AARP and the social security scam, where the leadership had been pre-coopted by the GOP.
I suspect the problem with NARAL and the SC is their lobbying efforts.
They pledge support because their lobbyist tell them to. Lobbyists arrange for favors for their clients in exchange for throwing poilitcal support behind the candidate.
It’s ineffectual at best. Most people vote for reasons other than what those organizations support. Gas prices, the economy, homeland security, the stability of our coutnry’s finances…I doubt NARAL or SC has any influence on voters.
It’s meaningless to the vast majority of voters what NARAL or SC thinks about candidates.
So, Bob Novak now smugly claims that Fitz knows who outed Plame, but didn’t indict the person because “no crime was committed.”
Right. We’re to believe that all the White House evading, stonewalling/criminal obstruction, lying/perjury were necessary to cover up a non-crime. Right, I was born last night.
Sierra Club
National Headquarters
85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
Phone: 415-977-5500
Fax: 415-977-5799
Sierra Club
Legislative Office
408 C St., N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
USA
Phone: 202-547-1141
Fax: 202-547-6009
Important Email Addresses:
General information: information@sierraclub.org
Membership questions: membership.services@sierraclub.org
Changes of address: address.changes@sierraclub.org
Outdoor Activities: national.outings@sierraclub.org
Online merchandise orders: store@sierraclub.org
Sierra Club Books: books.publishing@sierraclub.org
Sierra Magazine: sierra.magazine@sierraclub.org
Licensing inquiries: licensing@sierraclub.org
Human Resources: hrd@sierraclub.org or visit our Jobs page.
Website technical problems: webmaster@sierraclub.org
Ah, I remember the days when Republicans accused Democratics in Congress of being beholden to special interest groups like NARAL and the Sierra Club.
The truth of the matter seems to be that some of these groups, like corporate lobbyists, are more concerned with the survival of their own organizations that with the causes that they support. They will give their now meaningless endorsements to whoever is currently in power.
I say that the endorsements are meaningless but I don’t know for sure. I’m more hopeful than convinced, actually. Will Democrats be persuaded to vote Republican because of this endorsement? Will Republicans be excited because Chafee has the Sierra Club endorsement? It’s just too weird.
At least I haven’t heard Republicans talking about Democrats and Special Interest Groups lately. Sigh.
[OT]
Ni hao, President Hu. Welcome to America.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12404061/
Whoa, hold on…I don’t know where Kos got the “20% score in 2004.” The Sierra Club does not do a national scorecard, LCV does: http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/ and they gave Chafee a 90% score in ‘05 and 72% in ‘04, compared with the scores of the Senate leadership of environmental committees which averaged 2% in ‘05. (LCV did not do the averages for the parties.)
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Chafee is single-handedly holding up Rep. Pombo’s bill to gut the Endangered Species act which passed out of the House last fall. Chafee is one of the few Republicans to buck his party on environmental issues. What kind of message would it send to other Republicans who want to vote against the polluter-influenced leadership if the Sierra Club and LCV did not support a Republican who scored 90%?
None is right. Sierra has been co-opted, just like NPR
So, Bob Novak now smugly claims that Fitz knows who outed Plame, but didn’t indict the person because “no crime was committed.â€
I take this to mean that Novak did not get his primary information from the White House, but from a secondary source.
Chaffee is an interesting problem to many groups. He votes like a dem- apparently- and he is from perhaps the bluest state in the nation- but his seat may make the difference between a gooper senate and a dem senate. I think he’s goin down. Wonder if he has considered turnin dem- guess it may be too late.
Uhm, Chafee did save our butts last year on Clear Skies, deadlocking the committee and keeping it from coming to a vote, despite tremendous administration and GOP leadership pressure, along with a full court press from power and coal companies, including the power companies from his home state. Does that count?
How about his other clean air votes, including work on mercury?
Look, I’m as down with hammering the GOP as anyone, and I hope Chafee goes down purely for partisan reasons. But please don’t fall into the trap of thinking that those who decide to do something with which you disagree simply weren’t paying attention. Chafee’s work in committee warrants an endorsement. Once bills hit the floor, they are usually foregone conclusions (sad but true). I refuse to hang someone because s/he doesn’t publicly buck his/her party, at least as long as s/he is willing to work with my side when it counts, in private. (Can we do something about the singular pronoun in the English language to make that last sentence just a little less ugly? Please?)
I’m not a Sierra Club staffer or even member. I have no dog in this fight, and can believe that SC has made a terrible mistake. But sometimes the lobbyists who work for public interest groups actually know what they’re doing, and deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Write the SC. Maybe they have a good explanation. Or maybe they’re douchebags. But we should ask first. Their good work for all of these years entitles them to that much courtesy, IMHO.
it’s probably worth considering how much some of “our” formerly important organizations have been infiltrated by wingnuttia. i know the Sierra Club has been struggling with its zero-growth position for some time now, but when you consider NARAL (post-kate), really - is there anything left there?
it’s probably time to jettison these groups and start over. like businesses that get taken over surreptitiously by Moonie followers and then slowly transformed into an equivalent of the Moonie Times, many of these organizations are simply no longer useful.
Novak may be a bit premature.. Fitz hasn’t indicted anyone for the outing YET. It appears that he’s about to nail Rove- that will give him two opportunities to shake down people who damned well know who did what, when, and why.
I made a substantial donation to the Sierra Club last year. I’m going to tear up my membership card and send it back to them, along with an angry letter telling them to put down the crack-pipe!
Just as a general comment, Chaffee is an odd figure generally reviled by the rest of the Republican Party. Coming from a state that is arguably neck and neck with my own (new Jersey) for the title of most corrupt, he has voted against tax cuts, Alito, the Iraq war, and even GW Bush in the 2004 election!
If you folks want to submarine him, we conservatives will back you all the way.
I’ve given to numerous environmental groups over the years.
The Sierra Club has been one of them, though not recently. And not in the future, either, now that I know this.
Update of a story I mentioned on an earlier thread:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0420.html
I just don’t get Sierra Club…Naral maybe…
OK…nope…I just don’t get anyone!
Do you think the endorsements are just primary endorsements? I know around here some organizations endorse for both primary and general elections.
I know…I’s grasping at straws…I just don’t want to think this of the Sierra Club.
Ed N Sted says:
April 20th, 2006 at 8:58 am
[OT]
Ni hao, President Hu. Welcome to America.
ï¼·hat Bush needs to say:
美 國 是 ä¸ åœ‹ çš„ 很 好 çš„ çš„ 朋 å‹ï¼Ž
And mean it.
Of course Kos linked his source, local news station Channel 10 The 20% number is a blockquote from the transcript.
If Chafee is actually strong on the environment, this puts the Jerome and Markos argument squarely in the middle of the table. Are environmentalists better off with a pro-environment Republican from RI, or a Democrat chairing the relevant committees?
Would the Democratic candidate be worse on the environment while representing RI? Is there any good reason to make any endorsement?
I can think of one. The Sierra Club would prefer Chafee as the Republican candidate, so that they are win-win in the general. They are implicitly saying that their issue in one senate seat matters more than supporting the party that strongly supports their issue at time when the entire fabric of enviromental regulation is being rent by an entirely republican government.
CTG argues that this is incredibly short-sighted thinking, especially when applied to issues like the environment and abortion, where the democratic positions command sizable majorities–so sizable that the republicans cannot openly state their positions on these issues, but implement by stealth and by lying about the intent of their legisation.
Something else from Raw Story:
Thanks for the alert Jane. I am furious. I have already written to the Sierra Club to protest, blogged it and told my parents who are lifetime members about this. It is an outrage and they will not get one more goddamned penny from me.
Idiots.
Keep them in chips? I thought the ambrosia of the cognoscenti were cocktail weenies?
rwcole -
Yeah, and/or he may just being blowing that old WH smoke for them. Agreed, no outing indictment YET. One of the things Fitz noted at the outset, when the Libby indictment came down, was that the perjury and obstruction threw sand in the investigative gears.SOMEONE in authority revealed the name of a NOC CIA person. Period. Illegally, unless you want to claim that The Decider gets lawfully out covert personnel at whim.
I bet a Rove indictment draws nigh as the next chapter in this saga. ‘eh?
The twenty percent number is wrong and Jane really should correct it. #18 (Don’t bruise the gin)is correct- Sierra Club doesn’t even have a scorecard and LCVs scorecard doesn’t give Chafee a 20% average. You really should at least have the courtesy to get your facts and your numbers right before you start telling people to stop supporting the Sierra Club.
I’m a member, and I just left a message on their press line voice mail asking that they post an explanation for this decision.
Thanks for the warning. The Sierra Club calls me all of the time asking me to reneew my membership. Now, I have the perfect reason to tell them no and forward my membership dues to Chaffee’s opponent. That’ll learn’em!
This one is tougher than it looks - Don’t Bruise and Ron are correct. Chafee’s present role in saving the Endangered Species Act makes him quite possibly the single most important conservation ally in the Senate, from either party. And while I’d love love love to see the Dems come up with “progressive environmental positions” on their own, there are reasons not to be hopeful: they never have; Blue Dogs and many western D’s aren’t on that page at all (see Baird & Herseth’s support for hideous logging bill proposed by Walden, for just one example).
I get it that we need the Ds in power to make bigger progress. But enviros should not, indeed must not, hand their power to a party which has not earned the right to stand as true stewards.
I have bitterly attacked the Sierra Club for milquetoast manueverings in the past. I will not do so in this instance.
Hu Ha!
I regards to the Chinese protester that was ranting for quite a long time–The old SS must have been certain that along with her rantings she wasn’t in possession of a blow-gun.
So, how will the Chinese percieve this little flap?
Interesting that Bush–who never allows anyone untoward from getting into his events–somehow let slip through someone who would actually bolster what was to be his “bold” moment of lecturing China on human rights abuses.(Forgetting of course that his own administration has now mainstreamed renditions, torture, indefinate jailing with out charges, internal spying on Americans, burning of corpses as propaganda, massive propaganda as propaganda, sexual humiliation, dogs as torture, overt threatening of the media, domestic propaganda, gulags, etc.)
The Chinese just may see this as a deliberate insult for domestic consumption.
Me, I would never be that cynical!
-GSD
Stephen Parrish, CPA–
Yay for all of them– Congress clearly won’t do its job, so private citizens have to step up to the plate. Bravo.
Boy, this is gonna make the tighty- righty wingnuts mad!!!
Think Malkin frothing at the uppitiness of the Japanese Americans Citizens League daring to speak up, much less the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund– bunch of liberal immigrants who should just be grateful and silent according to those of her ilk.
Here’s the press release posted at the NY Chapter site.
S. Parrish @ 32
Shades of Chalabi…
“Cheney has tapped Iranian expatriate, arms dealer to surveil any Iran talks, officials say… Developing…”
Adnan Kashoggi?
God, the retreads that this adminsitration funnels back into use is like watching Battle of the Network Stars from the 1980’s.
When is Eugene Hasenfuss going to get back to flying covert ops for the Bush Team?
-GSD
Sierra Club doesn’t even have a scorecard and LCVs scorecard doesn’t give Chafee a 20% average
It’s in the news story. Perhaps you should ask the folks at the local station to explain or retract the number.
GSD– I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head– am watching the presser now with Bush and Hu– Bush is clearly outdone and uncomfortable.
Does this tool actually think that Siera Clubbers will put forth their efforts for Chaffee? In deep blue Rhode Island, for Chrissakes? Aren’t most SC members rather liberal, and are they going to go against their greater interests for the leadership of the SC?
I doubt it. I think we (the blogosphere) needs to pound this message: If The Sierra Club endorses a Republican candidate with a 20% favorable environmental rating, then as an environmentalist the Sierra Club no longer represents your interests.
Can someone get a list of active SC volunteers and email them this message? What would happen of Buckser can’t get his minions to go along? Will he be toast, too?
Perhaps a little revolt in the SC might teach these fools a lesson.
Notes to self:
1) Do not renew Sierra Club membership.
2) Encourage friends to do the same.
3) Do not make contributions to Sierra Club or organizations that support Sierra Club.
4) Return any postage paid Sierra Club mailings with extra weight and a note that I regret their support of Chafee.
sorry if this has been posted already, but check out Tony Auth’s brilliant “cartoon;
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/ta/
sorry if this has been posted already, but check out Tony Auth’s brilliant “cartoon;
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/ta/
enjoy!
jayackroyd sez:
“If Chafee is actually strong on the environment, this puts the Jerome and Markos argument squarely in the middle of the table. Are environmentalists better off with a pro-environment Republican from RI, or a Democrat chairing the relevant committees?”
and that is well-put. But there is another question the Club must answer here: how do you treat a pol who has bucked the Rethug leadership and corporate agenda on not just a flagship issue, but as Ron points out, a series of important envtl policy battles?
These questions would be _much_ more easily answered if the Ds did in fact have a solid envtl platform, as Kos and others often assume/assert. But they don’t. Not yet, anyway.
Angie -
is the WH Hu presser streaming? I need a good laugh.
I was watching it live on CNN, BobbyG– they just cut away; the tension was thick enough to cut with a sword…
angie -
OK. LOL!!!
I now have a CSPAN feed up of the WH welcoming ceremony, I’ll see where that goes.
“It’s in the news story. Perhaps you should ask the folks at the local station to explain or retract the number.”
And we all know that the MSM never gets anything wrong.
Notes to self:
Well, you might start by writing them, as a member, and asking them to withdraw the endorsement. That’s my plan anyway.
I’ve heard people voting for a candidate because the UAW or teacher’s union they were part of supported a particular candidate.
I’ve not once in my entire life heard someone voted base upon who the Sierra Club and/or NARAL was supporting.
I agree with the assessment of wedge issues adn small percentages of voting populations as being somewhat hurtful to Dems in elections but I think that mainly applies to the religious freaks. Not all Chrsitians vote (R) and not all of them are mental cases, but there are a few of them in every denomination to cause a tip in the balance overall.
I just don’t see these two particular organizations as being all important come election time.
It’s simply positioning for them.
This page from the Sierra Club’s web site might be where the 20% number came from:
http://whistler.sierraclub.org.....;lid=S0781
In 2004, Chafee had one environmentally favorable vote out of five on the Sierra Club’s list. In 2005, he had 16 friendly out of 19 total votes for 84%. Perhaps the Sierra Club’s endorsement was actually awarded for “most improved Senator”.
Chafee is actually in hot water in his own party because he isn’t 100% loyal to Bushco.
He is facing a primary battle against a winger, Stephen Laffey, endorsed by the Club for Growth. Supporters are encouraging independents to vote in the Repub primary for Chafee in the hope of defeating Laffey.
So I kinda see their reasoning, except the winger will likely go down in flames in the general election, and put a good Democrat in office. So I am not voting for Chafee.
(Main head) Regrets, (subhead) opportunities lost.
someone seems to have a blog titled The House of the Rising Sons.
Loved the metaphor about degradation in quality of second and third generation replicates.!!!!!
And then there’s this:
Jonah Goldberg:
Seeing red over ‘green scare’
April 20, 2006
MEET AL GORE, scaremonger. In 2004, Gore denounced President Bush for “playing on our fears.” Today, he is at the forefront of a “green scare” about global warming intended to terrify Americans into submitting to his environmental policies.
Chafee’s dad was always pretty strong on the environment, and I believe the boy is, too. But that’s beside the point.
When I worked for the Babbitt Interior Department, the Sierra Club would ALWAYS rather make a political point than improve a policy. In my opinion, the like having Bush in control because it helps them raise money. Sad and pointless, but sometimes things just don’t make sense.
The Sierra Club makes pretty calendars, but that is about all they are good for…and I work on natural resources issues for a living.
Kos’s article is based on a news report that says that Chafee had a 20% rating from Sierra Club. I couldn’t find that scorecard with a quick google search but I did find a LCV scorecard from last year where Chafee had a 90% rating, and 72% for the 2004 cycle. That’s not so bad.
It is certainly that true that if the Rs keep the Senate because of the Chafee race, then the environment will suffer. But that’s a different argument than the one made in this story, and by Kos, that the Sierra Club is idiotically supporting a candidate who is actually anti-environment.
Nonpartisan advocacy groups have to reward people who vote with them even if they are Republicans. Otherwise they have no leverage when they score votes. So their position is more complicated than the angry rants on Kos would suggest.
What level of support for environmental causes would we require of a Republican before admitting that an environmental group would be justified in supporting him or her? 80%, 90%? What about someone with a 100% voting record? Do we really think that a group should say to that Republican, sorry, but your leader is Bill Frist so we want to defeat you? That attitude is correct for the Democratic party, but not for a nonpartisan advocacy group.
GSD,
Manucher Ghorbanifar
just wiki him for a tripdown memory lane
Adnan Kashoggi? is Turkish by birth and most of his ties are to The Kingdom
If Chafee is actually strong on the environment, this puts the Jerome and Markos argument squarely in the middle of the table. Are environmentalists better off with a pro-environment Republican from RI, or a Democrat chairing the relevant committees?
The real situation is that it’s a gamble. If the Democrats take back the Senate, the Sierra Club is clearly better off having supported a Democratic candidate. If the Republicans retain control, and they help elect a Democrat, they may be worse off (at least until the Democrats do take control), because there will be less impediment to people like Inhofe. If the Republicans retain control and Chafee wins, they have less influence with him.
I think the major thing issue groups don’t take into account is that the only way you retake control is by defeating the “good” Republicans. People like Chafee vote more liberal because their states/districts are heavily Democratic, so they’re the ones where we have the votes to get them out. We’re not going to defeat the most horrific Republicans, no matter how awful they are, because they’re from districts where voters like that crap.
For issue organizations, having friends across the aisle is great in legislative session, but at election time, it’s a luxury you can’t afford unless you’re in a secure majority. It’s perfectly understandable if they want to sit out a race because it would seem hypocritical based on the GOP candidate’s record, but actually endorsing is unacceptable.
P J Evans @ 61– that ought to go over real well on the left coast (’ceptin Orange County, perhaps)! What an asshat. Well, he won’t starve for the lack of produce that has been decimated from the rains this spring in CA. He probably doesn’t even eat any veggies or fruits from the looks of him and he can just exist on his fat stores for a long while…
You can check out the LCV scorecard here and see that in 2005 Chafee had a 90% pro-environment voting record in 2005 based on a wide variety of votes:
http://www.lcv.org/images/clie....._lores.pdf
And #63, the reason you can’t find Sierra Club’s scorecard is because they don’t have one; all the enviros use LCV’s because LCV is a coalition of all the enviro orgs. Can we find something based on a tiny number of votes to mislead people into believing that Chafee has a worse record than he does? Sure. Should we do that? No. This is the type of stuff that gives blogs a bad name (like “fever swamp”).
SetTheRecordStraight@63: What level of support for environmental causes would we require of a Republican before admitting that an environmental group would be justified in supporting him or her? 80%, 90%? What about someone with a 100% voting record? Do we really think that a group should say to that Republican, sorry, but your leader is Bill Frist so we want to defeat you? That attitude is correct for the Democratic party, but not for a nonpartisan advocacy group.
For an effective advocacy organization, I think the focus should be on overall results, not on rewarding individual behavior. A lawmaker’s votes matter, and the agenda of the leadership they support also matters.
If there’s no chance of a change of leadership, it’s reasonable to focus solely on votes. If there is a chance of a change of leadership, then focusing solely on a lawmaker’s votes means not working as effectively as possible for the results the organization seeks.
Novak on Clusterfuck- they’re all gangin up on the poor defenseless little pervert:
On the midterm elections this November, Novak said it was “possible, not probable” that Democrats would retake control of the House of Representatives. But he said the Republicans and their leader are in trouble.
“The edge seems to be right now to the Democrats,” Novak said. “…President Bush is not what I would call a skilled politician. He seems aloof, almost arrogant.”
(linked at Huffington- link doesn’t work)
Um, any idea who his likely opponent will be? That’s the side of the story that seems to be missing here. Chafee is being supported over…who, exactly?
The point is: RI is the most left-leaning state in the union. Why keep a guy with a 90% environmental environmental record when you can replace him with a guy with a 100% environmental voting record who will ALSO filibuster frikkin’ Alito & Roberts, who are going to make environment-destroying decisions for decades to come?
Chafee has already let me down to the point that I’ll never support him for anything.
Seems as if the “issue” groups want to be perceived as independant. They don’t support either party- they support their cause. They probably get donations from members of both parties and need to prove that they will support whoever supports them.
Anybody catch the footage of his half-assed attempt at whistling the theme to the “bridge over the river Kwai” the other day when they blew up the old Jamestown bridge?
Growing up in RI taught me two things about it’s politics:
As long as he brings home the lootcakes to the Ocean state and shows up at all the important state functions, he’s really isn’t in any danger of losing his seat.
SetTheRecordStraight @ 63 & Magnum @ 67,
Please check out my comment and link at #58. I can’t speak to the LCV numbers, but The Sierra Club does track votes. It took me longer to calculate the percentages and type my previous message than it did to find that web page
Whatever happened to Patrick Kennedy? Can’t the Dems run him?
These questions would be _much_ more easily answered if the Ds did in fact have a solid envtl platform, as Kos and others often assume/assert.
And I think they would be harder to answer if there was any real bipartisanship from the republicans. A recurrent theme in CTG is that the single issue folks are engaging in a strategy that makes sense when the party that generally supports them is in power. Then you do want to encourage the election of minority party members who support your views.
In this case, a democratic senator from RI is going to vote the same way Chafee does on environmental issues. This is what J&M mean when they say this a shortsighted way of looking at things. Yes, if the democrats don’t take the senate in 06, and yes if the new senator from RI is a minority dem, then the Sierra Club agenda faces an immediate setback.
But if they continue to work this way, they’re going to keep shrinking the minority of the party that does by and large support them–the party they want selecting the chairmanships and controlling the flow of legislation.
As I said in the beginning, this is the centerpiece of the argument, right here. Which strategy carries more value for the Sierra Club, and by extension, its members, like, ahem, me?
I think it’s manifestly clear that their strategy is not working in the face of a ruthless united republican opposition. I think it’s a mistake to focus on narrow rear guard actions, because all you end up doing in the end is retreating a little farther.
So this is a good discussion to have.
And we all know that the MSM never gets anything wrong.
We know they often get things wrong, yes. But Jane’s quote is accurate, as was Kos’s.
And the discussion here is making it clear that Chafee has some done some solid work on environmental issues, even if on some scorecard, it doesn’t look that way.
Karl Rove screams “”Stop The Torture And Investigation!”
May I Suggest Pop Secret..?
Root Beer, Jordan Almonds and Goobers or Raisinets. You may want to pull up a chair since it should be pretty entertaining from here on out.
Grand Jury Hears Evidence Against Rove
“Fitzgerald is said to have introduced more evidence Wednesday alleging Rove lied to FBI investigators and the grand jury when he was questioned about how he found out that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA and whether he shared that information with the media, attorneys close to the case said.
Fitzgerald told the grand jury that Rove lied to investigators and the prosecutor eight out of the nine times he was questioned about the leak and also tried to cover-up his role in disseminating Plame Wilson’s CIA status to at least two reporters.”
http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com
I just finished calling Sierra Club headquarters to cancel my membership over this and then came to this post and found this discussion raging. The person I talked to justified the Sierra Club position by saying they want to show they are bipartisan. To me that is small-minded thinking–they should be bipartisan but there is too much at stake here for them to throw their weight behind a Repub even if They should be smart enough to know that. I don’t trust SC or their motives and will only give to smaller grassroots environmental organizations (except UCS) from now on.
Take this for what it is worth. I don’t pretend to know what really motivates groups like the Sierra Club or NARAL to endorse as they do. It baffles me often.
I can tell you this: I am fairly active with Planned PArenthood and talk off therecord with some people at the national office. I know that they spend a lot of time fretting over their 501(c)(3) status and constantly fear that they are being too agressive and crossing over the line into being labelled as partisan.
This is because the Democratic Party has traditionally had choice as part of it’s platform and the Republican paarty has traditionally had forced birth as plank in thiers.
Ergo, whenever the is a republican that says anything remotley palitable about choice, they rush to support that person so as the have another example of how they are “non-partisan” as reequired to maintain their charitable organization tax status.
I have sen many examples of PP supporting a real schmuck who says something barely equivocal about choice over a Dem who has always been strong on choice. They actually dare the Dem to back down on the issue of choice and be labelled a hypocrit or politician if it happens.
Also PP gets the bulk of it’s funding through Medicaide. PP is one of the largest providers of medical services to this poor in this country. Not just repoductive services, but primary care as well.Not to mention neo-natal and well baby care. Some PP branches are now offering cradle to grave services.
If they get kicked off the list of providers, clinics all over the cou try would be out of business and the services to the poor and working poor would be decimated.
So, they need to support a Republican anywhere they can to prove that they are issue oriented not party oriented.
Maybe it’s the same with the Seirra Club?
Jane,
Left you and EPU’d comment at 86 on thread below. Sorry if I frustrated you.
Jane, thank you so much for this: “But over at The Next Hurrah, commenters Jeff and pollyusa note that this is not the language used in the actual memo itself:
‘Meeting apparently convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD managerial typ and the wife of Amb. Joe Wilson, with the idea that the agency and the larger USG could dispatch Joe to Niger to use his contacts there to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium sale question.’
In the actual memo it says that Valerie Wilson had the idea that “the agency and the larger USG could dispatch Joe to Niger.” The SSCI version removes the references to the involvement of these entities and distorts the paragraph to make it look like it was all on Valerie Wilson to send her husband on the trip.”
I read tnh, but I completely missed how the INR memo discredited the SSCI.
Thanks so much as per usual.
First of all, the Sierra Club is non-partisan, and that is how it should be, no matter how much an idiot like Kos rails against it. Kos likes to bash single-issue groups, but keep in mind that he is also single issue — he is only concenred about relacing the (R) with a (D) no matter the cost to real issues.
Second, the Dems’ record on enviro issues as a whole is hardly something to brag about.
Third, the 20% figure is cherry-picked just to make Chaffee and the SC look bad, and single-issue Kos of course fell for it. Here is what I believe to be the source of the 20% figure for Chaffee’s 2004 voting record. Note that the second vote appears to be misclassified. Also note that Chaffee’s 2005 voting record gives an unweighted 84% pro-enviro voting percentage.
Fourth, as others have pointed out, and as is not evident from the voting history, Chaffee’s has killed anti-enviro bills in committee.
Here’s the link for the 2004 voting record that didnt appear in my post above:
http://whistler.sierraclub.org.....=2004& lid=S0781
Jst finished watching the CSPAN video stream of The Decider and Hu at the WH welcoming ceremony. That heckler went on for a LONG time while Hu spoke. Interesting. Hecklers who manage to infiltrate Bush events are usually swarm-tackled and rustled out after about 6 words.
They allowed this to happen?
In 2004, the year cited in the tv piece, Chafee did indeed score 72 on the LCV scorecard (pdf). The junior senator, Reed, a democrat, scored 96. If Chafee loses the nomination in the primary, which could happen if independents don’t show up and vote for him, there will be another 90+ voting from RI.
That’s bad enough. But they’re also supporting him in the general, against an opponent who would certainly have a better voting record on environmental issues.
Even if there is not a dem majority in the senate, getting a reliable environmental vote into that seat is best accomplished by putting a democrat in that seat.
i’m embarrassed. sc has been one of my charities for 10 years. not another dime from me for these jackasses. ever. i’d be better off using my money as mulch for my day lillies. no i’m not over-reacting. fuck these idiots.
If your country’s political system involves weak parties, decision-making by individual politicians, and loose fluid coalitions around individual issues, then it makes perfect sense for an advocacy organization to evaluate a politician by how he or she votes on specific issues and what coalitions he or she has belonged to at various times. If your country’s political system involves strong party discipline and all important political decisions are made by the leadership of the ruling party, then it makes no sense for an advocacy organization to pay attention to anything but a politician’s party affiliation.
Traditionally the US political system has been the former. Right now it’s the latter. Organizations like NARAL and the Sierra Club had better wake up and notice what decade they’re living in.
No money from me, ever again, for S.C.
Matt at 88:
I think you just hit it on the head. That analysis just totally resonated with me.
OT
Here’s the report on the arms dealer we have hired:
The Department of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney have retained the services of Iran-Contra arms dealer and discredited intelligence asset Manucher Ghorbanifar as their “man on the ground,†in order to report on any interaction and attempts at negotiations between Iranian officials and US ambassador to Iraq, Zelmay Khalilzad, current and former intelligence officials say.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, three intelligence sources identified the Iran-Contra middleman as having been put back on the payroll, acting as a human intelligence asset and monitoring any movement in discussions about Iran’s alleged burgeoning nuclear weapons program.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0420.html
I went back and checked - the scorecard thing certainly is a bit confusing.
Sierra Club does have a scorecard of sorts - they show the pro-/anti- environmental voting of each Senator on each relevant vote, year by year, bill by bill.
So I checked Chafee’s, and the report Kos cites is technically correct: In 2004, there were 5 bills Sierra Club reported on, and Chafee voted anti in 4 of the 5. However, to base the whole thing on Chafee’s 2004 votes is pretty misleading - it’s like saying “In 2005, Bush did not invade any new countries” - well sure, that’s technically correct, but not all that useful. Bush should not a get a 100% anti-invasion scorecard based on that.
Per the Sierra CLub website, Chafee’s scroe for 2006 so far is 100% pro-environment (2 pro, 0 anti). His 2005 score was 16 pro-environemnt, 3 anti. His overall score was around 68% (53 pro- 26 anti).
As to whether this keeps people from donating to Sierra Club: that’s ap ersonal choice. But given the good work Sierra CLub does, and given that as a 501(c)(3) they’re not allowed to favor one party over the other, I don’t think this endorsement warrants the kind of castigation they’re getting here.
rwcole–You are partly right. It’s der Vater, but das Land, so das Vaterland. You’re velcome.
An alderman says go back to Germany, Congressperson calls constituent an a****le, see it just can’t be that hard to be an elected representative. I’ve done it successfully myself [run for office…not spit on constituents] and highly recommend the experience. Get those petitions going!!
I just scanned all 82 comments and I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet.
Jane, did you know that the Sierra Club Executive Director, Mr. Carl Pope, not only has a blog, but has one where you can leave comments? (hint, hint)
The blog is called: Taking the Initiative
Let’s take his advice. :-) After all, he does asks for feedback.
angie says:
April 20th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Update from Raw Story:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0420.html
Oh my, another gem from the raw story article:
Ghorbanifar was also present at discussions in Rome in 2001 – talks which have received much attention because they were attended by Pentagon and Iranian officials. According to neoconservative Michael Ledeen, who participated in the talks, the topic was Iran. A second set of meetings later took place in Paris.
“The Rome meetings had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, but with Iran and Afghanistan,” Ledeen told RAW STORY.
In an exclusive interview with Newsweek late last year, Ghorbanifar stated that the meetings in Rome and Paris were about regime change in Iran. The meetings included Larry Franklin, a Pentagon Iran analyst who has been convicted for passing secrets to an Israeli lobby, and Harold Rhode, a Defense Department consultant also under investigation in the case.
Angie -
Oops! I didn’t see your post (# 91) when I was posting my update.
Seems as if the “issue†groups want to be perceived as independant. They don’t support either party- they support their cause.
Yes, that’s correct. They want to maintain the idea that their issues are not partisan issues, but issues that both parties should and can support.
Stealing again from CTG, this strategy assumes that your supporters are in the majority in the Congress, and that you’re trying to poach votes from the other side. It made sense in 1978 to act this way–to make it not only possible, but beneficial for a republican to have a good environmental record.
But now the being a republican part trumps the good environmental record part, even for Sierra Club members. Who picks the committee chair matters way more than how any individual senator votes, or even what legislation he blocks.
This doesn’t have to be true. There was a time when Senators did not vote down straight party lines, when alliances shifted based on regional concerns and sincere concerns over issues rather than being based on one party amassing all the power it can. Right now, the republicans are abusing long-established systems of cooperation and governance that, by this action, the Sierra Club assumes still exists. It doesn’t. These are extraordinary times. The US is being run like a parliamentary system, but without the vote of confidence thing.
The Sierra Club, NARAL, NOW, have to wake up and recognize the party is the enemy now. It really wasn’t in 1978. Not even so much in 1992. But now, the party is the enemy, and they need to recognize that it doesn’t matter whether Chafee protected the Clean Air act because the administration is not enforcing its provisions, and neither the Senate nor the House is doing anything about that.