I agree completely. The Sierra Club is unfortunately very much like the current Senate Democrats.

Shame on both.

The Sierra Club appears to be following the “Washington Post” transformation.

Wow, Jane, what a beautiful picture and place.

Let’s go!! I’ve got a Subaru, it goes everywhere.

Somebody’s gotta FITZ!

Boo-hoo times in Freeperitaville:

“George W. Bush shames the American people once again. First by taking his shoes off in a D.C. mosque after 9/11, while the Towers still smoldered, to proclaim the “religion of peace”. Then by holding hands with the Saudi leader, strolling through the lillies in Crawford. Now apologizing for the First Amendment to a dictator.
Absolutely despicable.”

Do I hear 27%?

-GSD

I got the same response to my email this morning to the Sierra Club “20% pro-environmental voting record was a wrong statistic†that their non partisan bla bla. Something’s askew, thanks.

Thanks for the post, Jane. Earlier today I asked for more information, and you provided it. I see the issue more clearly now. There was never a chance that I would support Chaffee in any way, I just had questions about whether the Sierra Club had some reasonable basis for endorsing him. It appears they did not. Control of the Senate is the key issue. I will let them know what I think.

Mr Colorado:
That’s so true. Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir. (And I have done tha same!) Is there a plan whereby we can regenerate the brains of the brain-dead Dems?

Heard on NPR that GW Clusterfuck referred to the People’s Republic of China using he official name of the govt. in Taiwan..

What a clod buster this guy is. Apparently the White House has been planning this event for months- just didn’t bother to tell the idiot in chief the name of the country he was hosting.

I am embarassed daily to be living in a country that elected this idiot even once. Holy shit!

I agree that the methods of the current Bushite GOP machine, and the lack of any independence shown by moderate GOP Congresspeople, indicate that Sierra Club approach is wrong. After grip of Bushites on GOP is weakened, then it may not be wrong, but that is certainly a hypothetical situation now. I don’t like the Total Partisan War posture at all, but reluctantly concluded some time ago that is the only realisic approach for all non-Bushites in the immediate future.

So we need a majority of Democrats in either House or Senate. That simplifies things, since then the issues of how infuriating they are, or how crooked, or how spineless, or two-faced, or what nasty legisltation they introduced, are irrelevant.

Just rank them by probability of defeating them in November and go down the list in that order. Do Dems have a good chance of defeating Chafee, or are there better targets? That is all that I think is important now.

Their defense is so 1070s and that is the problem. The Sierra Club wants to believe that their are still moderate Republicans.

Not really.

When push comes to shove, they fold. Chafee does have a better environmental voting record on specific targeted votes, but where it really matters–budgets, leadership, appointments, earmarks, etc. he is AWOL. And so are most special interest groups who spend all their energy on one set of issues.

Chafee does not serve in a vacuum. All of his actions and votes matter. He is a Republican. His party is at war with the environment.

Chafee may sit out a fight here and there, or save an environmental regulation from the worse-case-GOP-backed scenario every now and again, but the sum total is not his LCV rating. That is only a snapshot.

Chafee is part of a Republican political ecosystem that is very dangerous to our planet. Supporting him is like protecting cats in the Australian outback or snakehead fish in the Chesapeake Bay.

If you look at an invasive species in isolation, it provides zero threat and may even have some benefits in its proper place. But Chafee’s party is an invasive species feeding on our nation.

He can not be supported just because some of his actions (isolated from the rest) are cute or even sensible.

There are many, many, many environmental/social justice organizations that get it.

These action oriented groups deserve support.

The Sierra Club is old, established and dedicated to fighting the last war. They seem to think that the way they did things in the 1970s will still produce results. Too bad they are stuck in their rich and active fantasy worldview.

We are fighting for planet’s survival and neither Chafee or the Sierra Club is really in the game.

Let’s hope they wake up. We need everybody if we want to have a hope of saving our Country and our planet.

GSD:
I want to (mildy) disagree (maybe). You said “Now apologizing for the First Amendment to a dictator. Absolutely despicable.”

If I were in Shrub’s place (O! The Humanity!) I might express regrets that one person in our country saw fit to exercise their free speech rights in that manner. However, that’s what you get in a “free society.” I hope that’s what Shrub was saying. I don’t believe that he was apologizing for the fact that it is possible to express disssent in this country. I’m sure you see the distinction.

Reading this entry made me recall newsreports of active infiltration of the Sierra Club by conservatives. Is this Chafee thing the result?

From Sirotablog:

RE: NRDC
Here are a few reasons why enviro groups rot from the inside out. But these can apply to just about any group.

1) Money - some folks sell out for money, such as in the case of the Greenpeace co-founder. The sad fact is getting involved full time into environmental activism is a great way to become destitute.

Also in their need to keep money coming in, the enviro groups have to modify their message so as to not to piss off their main contributors - middle and upper middle class folks.

This leads to a form of self-censorship. Cases of this can be seen with the NRDC support of coal mining. Or the Sierra Club’s silence on the water situation in the southwest and the overdevelopment of said area.

2) Ideological shifts. What happens in this situation, is when the founder and his/her associates retire or die and a new group gets control of a organization there is bound to be a drift from the founders original goals.

Also cronyism and favoritism is bound to creep in as organizations get bigger and wealthier. This leads to institutional stupidity and expresses itself in all sorts of areas. Such as the inability to reach out to minority and religous groups in order to stregthen the movement.

3)Infiltration by corporate goons. Businesses do not like enviro groups period and spend lots of money trying to destroy or marginalize them. They even sick the U.S. and foreign gov’ts on them when possible. So it should come as no suprise that business would send in imposters to derail a institution from the inside. There are documented cases of this occuring.

Pope writes: “We need more Republicans like Senator Chafee.”

Pope, dude, listen up–we don’t need more Republicans like Senator Chafee. We need more Democrats, period, because then we wouldn’t need intermittently sentient Republicans, get it?

Rwcole:
“I am embarassed daily to be living in a country that elected this idiot even once. Holy shit!”

When you go to Europe, they will give you an earfill about that! (In restaurants, hotels, on the streets — I am stopped repeatedly to “defend” the actions of this administration. I cannot. (I hope that does not make me a traitor!)

ps. I did NOT get this when Clinton was in office. (Wonder why?)

I agree with dengre: the Sierra Club is still stuck in the ’70s mindset that having so-called “principled Republicans” in Congress is helpful to its cause. That would be the case were the Democrats in the majority, but as long as the radical-right GOP holds power environmental protections will continue to be flushed down the tubes — and the feeble handful of moderate Republicans will continue to be ineffectual. A vote for a Republican, any Republican, is a vote against the environment … regardless of the individual candidate’s position.

If Chafee is defeated in the primary and the conservative Laffey wins….then the seat will default to the Democrat–almost 99% sure.

If it is Chafee verse the leading Dem. Whitehouse…it will be a fight. But, I don’t know that Chafee has the fight in him. He is an honest to goodness moderate Repub. along the Jeffords line and he must be getting awfully weak-kneed about the Falwell/Coulter Wing running the show.

Also lookie here. Kyrgyzstan is looking to boot the US out now too. Looks like Russia is twisting some arms these days and ain’t liking the US encroachment on their spheres of influence.

RWCole. I think that was a deliberate and infantile slap at China. Interestingly, the Falun-Gong protester was given the honorary Jeff Gannon day pass from the Whitehouse. Perhaps that was why the Secret Service took soooo long to toss her out. So she could get her point across. You know, religious freedom and all that happy stuff.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepre.....82604.html

-GSD

Sonate–Yeah I know- lots of friends from across the pond. At least the germans elected someone who may turn out to be a wanker too- and I don’t take shit from brits- looks what they’re stuck with.

What is the funding breakdown, who funds the Sierra club?

OT:
Revolt of the generals
The denunciation of the administration’s handling of Iraq by former US army chiefs is unprecedented

Sidney Blumenthal
Friday April 21, 2006
The Guardian

Almost all voted for Bush in 2000. Serving their civilian neoconservative superiors, they endured contempt. Donald Rumsfeld’s closest aide, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, joked that the army’s problems “could be solved by lining up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down”, according to Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor in their new book on the Iraq invasion, Cobra II. In September 2001, Rumsfeld held a Pentagon meeting where he declared the “bureaucracy” - the career professionals - to be “a serious threat to the security of the United States”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq.....17,00.html

Message left at HuffPo:

“There is no question that the environment will be in safer hands if the Democrats take control of the Senate. Chafee will never help them do that. The Sierra Club needs to review its endorsement policy and bring it into alignment with the real world.”

I invite you all to go there and leave your comments.

the question isn’t whether or not the lefty blogs are right and the mainstream old line advocacy groups of the left are wrong–we are, and they are, if you see what i mean. the question is–why?

i think the useful analogy here is charter schools. they are public schools that are put together by strong teacher/parent groups behind them. they tend to start out very well, getting higher scores for their kids than regular public school. but after a couple of years those numbers even out–they become what they started out trying to improve upon.

that’s the deal. all these 70s groups started out trying to change the world, then were co-opted and became a part of that world. they remained true to some bastardized version of their core ideals, but they started believing that getting a D improved to a C was somehow real progress. now we come along, with the cold clear vision of how things actually are, and right now we are on fire. the question is–can we continue to channel this anger and energy in the right direction? can we create something permanent and positive? or will we too just turn into co-opted losers like those who went before us.

jane, if someone offered you 250k a year to blog for them, and they were a mainstream paper, would you do it?

please check out my site for further info on my wife’s art show on saturday for those in the LA area.

Sheldon Whitehouse and Matt Brown aren’t the only two Rhode Island Democrats running for Senate. Carl Sheeler, an ex-Marine, has called for Bush’s impeachment and talks seriously about promoting alternative energy resources. He’s definitely a long shot, but he’s part of the current complicated Rhode Island political equation. Furthermore, recent reports suggest that Matt Brown may drop out of the race soon. He’s running out of money and his campaign is in disarray. Many Rhode Island Democrats, myself included, wish that Chafee would switch parties. He’s a strong environmentalist, he voted against the war in Iraq, and he announced that he didn’t vote for Bush in the last election. It would be better to have a Democrat in the Senate — I’ll bet that most Rhode Island Sierra Club members won’t shed a tear if , say, Whitehouse beats Chafee. But as a personality and on the issues, Chafee can come across as a more compelling and straightforward politician than his likely opponent Whitehouse.

Eventually Hitler’s generals turned against him too–tried to blow him up. Don’t think the american generals are up to that- they’ve got nice pensions and lifetime priveleges to look forward to.

Looked at Yahoo News to read about the apology business. Well, it was done in private in the Oval Office. You can’t tell exactly what the President said from a one sentence report. I can’t see the point of making a big deal about a private apology that may have been needed if this oppressive dictator was V. pissed off. But maybe it should not have been publicly reported. Some of these Freepers are total fanatical nuts.

But, below is something to be steamed about. This, along with RumDum’s modernization efforts that are now reported to have left out defenses against new generation of surface anti-naval missles. (I don’t have a link that that story right now, but Iran has them, along with other not very friendly countries, and they may be critical in protecting Persian Gulf.)

RumDum strikes again! Or the Bushites are in actuality such weak incompetent fools that they have no real power over their own political machine.

***
Senate Bill Shorts Gear for Troops By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 20, 3:46 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops’ night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....ng_add_ons

Rwcole (#19)
I boutght a T-shirt in Germany in the late 1990s. It states:

America Has:
Bill Clinton
Steve Wonder
Bob Hope
Johnny Cash

Germany has:
Helmut Kohl
NO Wonder
NO Hope
NO Cash

Although the shirt is dated (substitute for Kohl), I’d never give it up.

Sonate.

I thought that I made it apparent that that was a post from a right winger at Free Republic. I called it “Freeperitaville” as a lark.

I hold NONE of those assertions in that post. The post in question was placed in quotes.

I’ll try to make myself a little clearer next time. That was not me or my opinions, it was the howling of a right winger lamenting the “Bush Sellout” to the Chinese dictator.

-GSD

I’m not a democratic socialist - I’m a libertarian socialist but I’m working for the dems this year for regime change at home.
So there’s some collateral damage?

Tell that to the inhabitants of SW Asia.

None of these fools has to die but they do have get out of the fucking way of the peace train.
That said I think all the dems need to ante up early as Murtha withdrawalists at the very least.
Also I think ratification of the ERA is necessary to fix Roe V Wade around the policy plank.
Stopping the Start wars program and releasing Leornard Peltier are also minimal demands as is a signed committment to downsize the overall size and power of the USSA state.
Oh and repeal the prohibition and all laws against sex work. We don’t cops in our bedrooms and living rooms thank you very much.
The dems just can’t cruise to the next election without pulling back from the fatal ‘ GOP Lite’ route of the DLC.
If any of these newly elected dems don’t listen to us then we know what to do to them.
There is a price for our support. We want recallable rotatable delegates that report back to the base - no more of this representational crap. These people are public servants who should fucking know how to read a webpage.
All major decisions must be reffered back to the base. ACID, AMNESTY and ABORTION!

OUTLAW the REPUBLICANS!

GSD- Go Bernie! just saw that. Go Bernie! (be prepared for questions…)

As a 501c3 how does the Sierra club use their status to endorse political candidates that may be in opposition to their members and donors?

GSD (#28)
Once again, I am too literal. (After years on this site, you probably know what I mean!) Thanks for the clarification. (I might have been the only one who needed it.) Thanks again.

#18 GSD–I don’t think they’d plant a mole in a crowd unless it was about heckling a political opponent. That’s really the only antagonist that gets them to do anything as effective and resourceful as that. BTW, where are you from in NH? I am from Hopkinton.

#23 RG–This might indeed be a case of necrotized complacency, but I think there’s a case to be made that a conscience can be revived. I like your wife’s work-what time does it start? Didn’t see it on site.

ppp says:
April 20th, 2006 at 6:44 pm

As a 501c3 how does the Sierra club use their status to endorse political candidates that may be in opposition to their members and donors?

—-

They are not a 501c3.

not what I read?

Unless there is a typo in the original post I’m wondering who cares if two Democrats say that they would not have voted for Frist. The Republicn conference in the Senate choses the majority leader.

Great post Jane & comments also. Listenin & learnin…

What’s the #1 environmental problem today? Global warming.

Perhaps the Sierra Club knows that George Bush is the only one out there with a plan to actually reverse global warming.

A nuclear winter.

Sonate.
S’alright.

Chis.
Milford.

We should have and FDL NH meeting someday.

-GSD

Breaking News: Massive earthquake in Russias northeast penninsula.

professor rat:
“I’m a libertarian socialist”

I’m sorry, I find that to be a contradiction in terms. (No offense, I just do not understand.)

ppp -

From their website:

“Note: Contributions, gifts, and dues to the Sierra Club are not tax deductible.”

They are not a 501c3.

ppp says:
April 20th, 2006 at 6:44 pm

The Sierra Club is a 501c4 organization.

Jane - when I enclose a small letter c within parentheses, how do I keep the copyright symbol from appearing (as in 501(c)(4)) in WordPress? Thanks for your help with this.

Is this old news?

http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/

OT http://www.editorandpublisher......1002383792
===EXCLUSIVE: ‘The Blade’ Hires Investigator to Probe Pulitzer Complaint

By Joe Strupp

Published: April 20, 2006 7:15 PM ET

NEW YORK Ron Royhab, the editor of The Blade of Toledo, Ohio, has revealed that the newspaper has hired an outside investigator to track down who sent an anonymous letter to the Pulitzer Board accusing the Blade of improper actions related to its ‘Coingate’ series, which was a finalist for a Pulitzer this year but did not win.

“We are trying to get to the bottom of something we find to be quite disturbing,” Royhab told E&P Thursday afternoon. “Wouldn’t you want to know if someone is trying to injure your reputation?”===

Jane - an addendum to my previous post: the copyright symbol appears in the preview section, but not in the actual comment.

“Nullifying the press”
“The Bush team served up Scott McClellan’s stolid stonewalling as the perfect device to humiliate and demote the media. And reporters played along.”
By Jay Rosen
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...../mclellan/

President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new low of 33 percent approve, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. A year ago this time, 47 percent approved and two years ago 50 percent approved (April 2004).

The old BS ain’t workin’.

http://www.pollkatz.homestead......age001.gif

This is how the Republicans are going to try to win the election.
–
Hundreds arrested in immigration raid
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Federal agents conducted a nine-state raid Wednesday and arrested more than 1,100 people on illegal immigration charges.
Most of the 1,187 illegal immigrants arrested are being processed for deportation, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Tina Sciocchetti in Albany.
http://www.news14charlotte.com.....mp;SecID=2

Re: that quake, it’s still rockin’ and rollin’ :

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqc.....170_60.php

Henny Penny, the sky is falling.

Crummy Rummy on Daily.

http://movies.crooksandliars.c.....henny-.mov

-GSD

“What’s the matter with Kansas?”

this is scary- note Hitler’s birthday

As Bush and Hu stood at attention outside the White House, an announcer said, “Ladies and gentlemen, the national anthem of the Republic of China, followed by the national anthem of the United States of America.”

“Republic of China” is the formal name of the island 100 miles off the Chinese mainland. China is known formally as the People’s Republic of China.

Taiwan is a most delicate issue for China. Beijing claims sovereignty over the self-governing island, which split from the mainland in 1949 as civil war ended on the mainland.

Oops- it wasn’t Clusterfuck himelf who committed this gaffe- it was an “announcer”. You can guess what happened. The goopers can;’t get them selves to utter the words “People’s Republic” so instead they would rather create an international incident.

ccmask
That’s a German owned company. I find that detail interesting, I got a dollar says they won’t raid Pilgrims Pride chicken plants.

I saw that Haley Barbour’s got an inlaw that just got a 100 million dollar FEMA contract.

33% is- I believe- ties for the lowest clusterfuck JAR in history- but records are made to be broken. Come on 29!

?

Sierra Club’s unique blend of c-3 educational outreach work, our c-4 advocacy efforts, and our PAC’s (political action committee) grassroots strength make the organization very effective indeed.

http://www.evergreenpolitics.c.....obby_.html

Chicken pluckers lead a tough enough life without immigration raids in mid pluck.

Suzanne Malveaux on CNN and the Hu Jintao visit.

“This has been a diplomatic disaster.”

Poor Chimpy can’t get a Goddamn break.

-GSD

I love it.

CCMask. I predict large scale terrorist sweeps, immigration sweeps and porn sweeps.

Hence the Halliburton Relocation Centers. I wonder if Bush and Rove plan on putting in “purple finger” voting stations inside?

Making a Tax-Deductible Stock, Bond or Mutual Fund Gift to The Sierra Club Foundation

i’m really hesitant to write this… i hope no one will think i’m trolling… and i certainly don’t want to defend the sierra club - but, i’m not quite ready to condemn them either…. this just doesn’t seem as clear-cut to me as naral thanking leiberman for his vote against alito.

i hope you-all will be willing to help me understand… when i try to put myself in their shoes, here’s some of my problems…

what if the sierra club thinks there is no chance of the dems being in the majority this election cycle? aren’t they better off with chaffee in his key position?

or.. what if sierra club support now is what is “owed” for previous key help in committee? how could the sierra club ever ask for help from a republican again - if they know there would never be any future support?

or.. what if the sierra club is thinking really long term… and worried about the level of support they can expect from dems? for example - the dems here is MA seem to be pretty badly affected by nimbyism with regards to the proposal to put wind turbines in nantucket sound. if the sierra club always support dems - then they will lose all leverage.

now, i do wish the sierra club wasn’t supporting chaffee. but, i just can’t (yet) condemn them for it.

what am i missing?

p.s. i’m not a member & don’t give them money… not because i’ve had a problem with them… i just have other environmental organizations higher on my priority list.

Thanks, Jane. And here I just gave the Sierra Club more of my hard-earned money. Think I can get them to give it back? Think they’ll print my screed if I write a letter to the editor of SIERRA magazine? Think we’ll ever stop being betrayed by people we think should be working WITH us and fighting FOR us?

Remember when Newt Gingrich blamed liberals for that Susan Smith baby drowning….

Why do Redstates rear so many high school kids that want to shoot everyone?

-GSD

He is corrupt.

Anyone know where to leave comments on this issue on the SierraClub website? I’m a member but i can’t seem to figure out if there’s an online blog or feedback area on their (overly massive and difficult to navigate) national website.

Still OT, but interesting (to me!)
http://www.editorandpublisher......1002383792
===The anonymous letter to the Pulitzer Board, however, begins, “Ten months before the 2004 presidential election–and 15 months before The Blade published its first Coingate story–the paper’s then-politics reporter Fritz Wenzel was tipped off about Tom Noe’s alleged campaign contribution scam in support of the Bush campaign and about problems with Noe’s coin investments for the state. Wenzel, with close ties to Noe, sat on the story and did not tell Blade editors what he knew.” Then it details various tips, dinner meetings and other intrigue, and alleged ethical conflicts, naming names throughout.===

===Royhab’s letter to Gissler recounted the Coingate investigation step-by-step, related that Wenzel was not involved in it at all, and described the early Noe tips as nothing but “rumors,” adding that editors “in no way conspired to ‘cover up’ anything.” ===

http://www.editorandpublisher......1000991071
===Shoptalk: More Dread in Ohio
By Joe Strupp
Published: August 01, 2005

The Blade of Toledo, Ohio, is on top of the newspaper world, thanks to its “Coingate” reports (see feature, this issue). But while the paper is rightly thumping its chest with each new revelation, it’s also coming under some scrutiny — not for what it has printed, but for what it may not have. Rumors swirl around a veteran Blade scribe, former political reporter Fritz Wenzel. Nothing at all is proven, but it’s worth recalling the dangers — even if it’s just in public perception — of jumping from political campaigning to political reporting and back again.

Wenzel, a longtime GOP campaign worker in Oregon, spent 10 years on the Blade politics beat before returning to the world of political consulting in May, virtually the day after he left the paper. One of the key contacts he made along the way was the man now at the center of the Coingate accusations, Tom Noe, a major Republican fund-raiser who attended the wedding of Wenzel’s son, P.J., a state GOP employee.===

The beauty is it’s a Fox poll, the wingers can’t spin the bias. He dropped 14 points in a year, but 6 of that was in the last month. That’s an accompishment. In his past life this is where he’d dump it to some wealthy investors and walk away.

The Sierra Club is one huge, sellout disappointment. Al Gore has the right perspective on the greedy Republican Earth destroyers AND their Democratic collaborators in the rape and destruction of the environment. This issue alone is enough to get my vote if Gore runs in 2008. One can only wonder at how much more air and water pollution has been added to the ecosystem as a result of the the Bush war in Iraq and his other toxic antics.

To make the Devil’s advocate case for the Sierra Club’s endorsement, they are not committed the way the Labor movement is to the Democratic Party, but have to treat each candidate on his or her merits with respect to their goals. I know nothing about Chafee’s environmental record, and obviously he’s an enabler, but the S.C. has to work with individual Congressmen so they are pretty much trapped if one of them comes across for them (I assume Chafee did, or they wouldn’t endorse him). It’s just one of those things.

rwcole–Don’t worry, Bush wasn’t elected either time. ‘00 fraud in Florida. ‘04 fraud in Ohio. ‘08 new black ops false flag postponed elections if they think diebold ES&S triad won’t get the job done. ‘12–won’t be any. Permanent government.

Oklahoma kiddo @66 - run al run!

Bout time fer Clusterfuck to start spending more time with his lovely family.

Blub, you can send an email to your state or regional Sierra Club chapter by finding your state under the My Backyard tab. I’m sure the earfuls we’ll send them will make their way to the national organization. The endorsement of Chaffee is the top item of “Sierra Club News” on my state page. Just bizarre.

Gergen just shoved the Bush machine under the bus on Anderson Pooper.

-GSD

Said: “Many of us said back after Katrina, now is the time to change gears, shake up staff and reach out to Democrats but we were brushed off.”

They lost the left, right and center.

It’s a disappointment. When will they learn that the few remaining moderate Republicans actually have to seek permission from leadership before going against the GOP? The only dissent allowed is meaningless dissent.

More Republicans in both chambers would vote their conscience were they allowed. But as it is, both house are ruled not by majority, but by majority of the majority. A vote for Chafee is a vote for Bill Frist.

And I know it’s off topic, but I love to say it: Impeach the Decider! Impeach the Decider!

Egregious,

Then Bush can have the plaque on his statue modified: George W. Bush President 2000-Infinity.

-GSD

That flippant comment of the RNC controlled govt selling off our natural resources to the highest bidder is patently false. The RNC central is leasing out our natural resources to a low ball bidder and then not collecting the rent. This is the preferred way as any long term damage to the environment will remain the govt’s responsiblity. It also leaves more room for the bidder to pay off (contribute) to its peoples’ deputy.

Next, don’t go to Huffington Post to mouth off to Pope. He/she/it will never read those comments, if we’re lucky some administrative assistant will read the comments. Go the Sierra Club web site, find the public forum, and dump on the pope there. Go ahead dump on his head, it’ll bio-degrade.

“…the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, joked that the army’s problems “could be solved by lining up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them downâ€

Ok, now we are the Soviet Union. Kill all the intelligent, experienced people. [and just who is left??] Welcome to the new USSR.

I’m sure most everyone here has gone to the TPM Docket web page listing political scandals. I just visited the page and sweet Jeebus I cannot belive how large that page is getting…..so many that I had forgotten some of them.
–
The Grand Ole Docket tracks trial dates, court appearances and sentencing hearings for players in the current array of national political scandals. But not just any crook can make it on the Docket - it only tracks perps who’ve been named by prosecutors in indictments or plea agreements.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php

Can’t ever remember a party fucking everything up as badly as today’s goopers. Makes Nixon look like a genius.

Looking back on this administration- hisorians will notice the post 9/11 period- where everyone was afraid to print the truth about Clusterfuck. It led him to believe that there was zero accountability- just like his previous fifty some years. That was all he needed to know. The rest is history.

Sorry, I missed something. Since when have the Bushies been persnickety about selling our resources to the highest bidder? It’s more like first-come, first-served.

Deborah L #16 in the Christian Right Fight thread…you don’t suppose the reason McCain sucked it up about Bush’s campaign tactics in SCar is he recognized a brother in sleaze?

All I can say is that environmental politics does make for some strange bedfellows. Gingrich was a passionate supporter of the Endangered Species Act back when he was House Speaker. A friend of mine who was quite high profile in the academic issues at the time (a liberal Dem) recounted several meetings he and others had in DC prepping Gingrich for the battle. And, Gingrich was attacked at the time by none other than David Ridenhour (spouse of the not-so-delightful Amy) and rabid anti-environmentalist- one of the causes of The National Center for Public Policy Research. (And BTW, I am not defending SC support of Chafee, or defending Gingrich.. but just to say that there have been some unexpected allies.)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/prging.html
===”Given the Speaker’s apparent contempt for private property rights, his penchant for ‘junk science’ and his indifference to the plight of Americans suffering under unreasonable regulations, he ought to be the environmental movement’s poster boy — not its villain,” said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Ironically, at the very time Speaker Gingrich has been villified by the environmental movement, he’s been working to ensure that they have greater say in the nation’s policies. Recently, Gingrich established a House Task Force on the Environment designed to give environmentalists veto power over all environmental legislation. Gingrich appointed Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to co-chair the Task Force, one of the House of Representatives’ most rabid environmentalists — Democrat or Republican. Boehlert received a 92% score in the League of Conservation Voters’ environmental scorecard — higher than 53% of House Democrats.===

Stephen Parrish–re typing 501(c)3 without it becoming the copyright sign, in real life if you type backspace after the ) then it turns back into what you want. On this site I am still experimenting, as you see: 501(c)??

OT
ccmask 21

Donald Rumsfeld’s closest aide, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, joked that the army’s problems “could be solved by lining up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them downâ€

That Cambone, he’s so funny. He and Hadley signed up early early on for use of “tactical pre-emptive nukes.” He took the dutiful notes from Rumsfeld to use 9/11 to go after Hussein. He even plays a nice prominent role at the end of the Mora story in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/.....227fa_fact

(Reading the Mora article is like watching Ol Yellar - I really want to just stop at certain points and pretend we got a different ending)

…Mora attended a meeting in Rumsfeld’s private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the military’s detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity.Going around the huge wooden conference table, where the officials sat in double rows, England asked for a consensus on whether the Pentagon should support Waxman’s proposal.

This standard had been in effect for fifty years, and all members of the U.S. armed services were trained to follow it. One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit America’s “flexibility.†It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal.

In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that “it’s a statute. It exists—we’re not free to disregard it. . . .

Not long afterward, Waxman was summoned to a meeting at the White House with David Addington. Waxman declined to comment on the exchange, but, according to the Times, Addington berated him for arguing that the Geneva conventions should set the standard for detainee treatment. The U.S. needed maximum flexibility, Addington said. Since then, efforts to clarify U.S. detention policy have languished. In December, Waxman left the Pentagon for the State Department.

The part Mora got wrong? DOJ is complicit in every single war crime by linking arms with Addington and kissing the ring for Bush and Cheney. If DOJ won’t draw the line in the sand, by refusing to aid and abett, wtih briefs and roadshows, violations of war crimes, then Mora got it wrong. The Administration is free to break the law when no prosecutors at DOJ will take a stand. A stand is NOT moving on to a lucrative private practice. A stand is not saying “Well, I didn’t thing it wsa a good idea at the time, but Addington called the shots.”

Kris is the only one from DOJ I would give a nod to for taking a stand. When the torture memos came out, every person in DOJ who did not publically and voicerously come out ON THE RECORD condeming what was taking place — is complicit. I don’t mean that in a “who should be punished way” but I do mean it in a “this is what changed the country” way.

Bad things happen. All the time, every administration, every confrontation. Through plan and by happenstance or simle neglect. . But never before have we had the Department of Justice of the United Sates of America, en masse, accept and endorse, through affirmation or silence, such massive breaches of law set into motion by the Executive Branch. Over an over, one revelation after another, and all we hear are Fine saying “we can’t investigte” and Moschella “it’s all legal” and Gonzales “I can’t talk about how we break the law - it might sound bad” (ok, I’m extrapolating a little there) But DOJ lawyers are not military - they can walk, they can complain. They just didn’t and it stuns me over and over.

How much would have been shut down, if DOJ had not given cover, over and over? Not just the AG - he’s the boss, but if his policies were overwhelmingly unpopular, they could not stand in the end. If, after the torture memos came out, 300 resignations were submitted, or even 100, then what? We won’t know. If, after the NSA program (or whatever parts of it have been acknowledged)a petition from within DOJ to the AG - then what? But there really hasn’t been a ripple. Internal bickering is not a ripple when the massive issues that we face are on the line. Instead, we have Bybee now sitting in a lifetime appointment to Circuit Court and Haynes who, but for Sen Leahy, would be doing the same (and is still on the nominatios list)

Another quote from Mora: When you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad.â€

Yep.

Here is quote from Cambone that shooting the Generals would solve problems. Doozy quote from RumDum too. Are you sure some of these neocons are *ex*-Trotskyites, or ex-Bolshevicks, or whatever. They certainly think like the old Bolshies. They have certainly bought into the “Give me the person and I’ll give you the case” [against them] idea of Beria (Stalin’s chief of secret police). Now we find they fantasized about liquidating all the intellectuals and qualifed professionals -including those in the military. Interesting. Conservatives, my fat ass!

*************************
Revolt of the generals

The denunciation of the administration’s handling of Iraq by former US army chiefs is unprecedented

Sidney Blumenthal
Friday April 21, 2006
The Guardian

The analogy between Iraq and Vietnam has proved to be most compelling to the generals who planned and conducted the Iraq invasion. They kept to themselves their profound disquiet about the rapid rejection of the original plan for invasion that took 10 years to develop, the inadequate downsized force, the absence of preparation for the occupation, and the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi military.
Almost all voted for Bush in 2000. Serving their civilian neoconservative superiors, they endured contempt. Donald Rumsfeld’s closest aide, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, joked that the army’s problems “could be solved by lining up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down”, according to Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor in their new book on the Iraq invasion, Cobra II. In September 2001, Rumsfeld held a Pentagon meeting where he declared the “bureaucracy” - the career professionals - to be “a serious threat to the security of the United States”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....33,00.html

Still too OTBush Under Siege – Day Two.

Jeb Bush that is.
A sit-in at Gov. Jeb Bush’s office stretched into a second day Thursday as about 30 college students protested the state’s response to the boot camp beating of a teenager who later died.

Now get ready for this – a Bush saying this – hold on – here it comes:
he told the students he does not have the constitutional power to carry out their demands.
Saywhu?

Now if his brother could learn to say it to Cheney and Rumseld.

Mary: Memorable Quotes from Judgment at Nuremberg

Ernst Janning: There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: ‘Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.’ It was the old, old story of the sacrifical lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded… sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world! We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said ‘go ahead, take it, take it! Take Sudetenland, take the Rhineland - remilitarize it - take all of Austria, take it! And then one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual began in this courtoom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life. Your honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it - he has done it here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen year old girl, after all. Once more it is being done for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it… whatever the pain and humiliation.

OT — I’m an avid reader of FDL, and have been following all the criminal legal proceedings against politicians, which are covered so well here. But what struck me is that there’s not a lot being said about the civil lawsuits like those described in two articles I read today:

Attorney Pursues Iraq Contractor Fraud

and

Blood is Thicker than Blackwater

Does anybody know if anybody is specifically blogging and keeping track of these types of issues on the Civil Dockets?

April 27th. The Claude Allen trial will remind the average American that in Bushworld a seat next to the President and all of the perks involved were not enough for Conservative Christian Claude Allen.

Drip, drip, drip.

-GSD

As to the Cambone comment. Just like Savage, just like Horowitz. They are the haters and the genocidaires.

And, things move so quickly here…FYI:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1066

===Stephen A. Cambone
Undersecretary of defense for intelligence
Project for the New American Century: Study member
National Institute for Public Policy: Study member
Rumsfeld Space and Missile Commissions: Staff
Despite—and perhaps because of—his close relationship to the defense secretary, Cambone is apparently widely disliked in the Pentagon. Tom Donnelly, PNAC military analyst and lead author of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, wrote in the Weekly Standard that “fairly or not, Cambone has long been viewed as Rumsfeld’s henchman, almost universally loathed—but more important, feared—by the services.†(6) The Washington Monthly reported in late 2001, “It would be hard to exaggerate how much Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top aide Stephen Cambone were hated within the Pentagon prior to September 11. ===

I lost my link in teh BUsh Under Siege post.
http://tinyurl.com/gc59o

rwcole 79
I think that’s it - and over and over, every shocker has been met with cover from Congress, the military brass and DOJ and with some bizarre concept of “balancing†adopted by the purchased media as cover. I say Dana Milbanks on Olberman last night, opining on The Generals, and he mentioned the support from Myers without ever mentioning Julie. So – Myers and his pal Pete, pretty much cancel out the other guys. Such a strange view, that reporting leaves out the negative facts so that it all balances.

Well, truthfully, the Sierra Club has never been one of my high priority causes. Oh, I’m certainly not “Smokestack Sam” in my views. The environment is important, but it’s not one of my red-hot issues.
On Chaffee, it seems that from reading everything, he gets endorsed by the Sierra Club, he’s a republican, but moderate to liberal, and opposes many WH issues. Some here defend Chaffee, others hope he’ll help the Democrats in other ways.
Me? I say sorry, but he wears the wrong uniform. He’s part of the enemy, and he needs to be taken down. He may be a “good guy” and all that, he may have some sort of 100% record on the environment…but I don’t care. I don’t have the luxury of deciding which among the enemy truly is a good guy, or decent soul, or whatever.
It’s all about subpoena power. At the end of the day…election day…control of the Senate and power of subpoena goes to the team with the most votes. “Good guy” Chaffee’s “R” counts just as much as idiot R’s such as Brownback, Cornyn, et al in determining Senate power.
Sorry, Mr. Chaffe, but you’re wearing the wrong uniform. He needs to be taken down.
Ghostman

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/

Link to HARRIS poll released today- Clusterfuck with a 35% rating. Right track/wrong track going into the toilet.

Dems, though, show only a four point advantage on the generic ballot question. Can’t figure that one out. Most polls are giving dems double digit leads.

President Bush’s job approval ratings remain low, with 35 percent of U.S. adults giving him a positive rating and 63 percent giving him a negative rating. Attitudes toward the state of the country have changed more substantially in the last month. More than one-quarter (27%) of U.S. adults say things in the country are going in the right direction, while 65 percent say things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. In March, nearly a third (31%) of adults thought things were going in the right direction, while 60 percent said things in the country had gotten off on the wrong track.

These are some of the results from the latest Harris Poll of 1,008 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone between April 7 and 10, 2006 by

rwcole 93 - how was the question asked?

I think there are many more people who will say they are willing to vote for a Dem next time, than who will say that they think Dems will do a better job. They haven’t sold anyone that they are a good alternative; it’s just they are the only alternative

New thread from Jane. Late Night De-lurking.

Mary–Here’s the language.

When asked if the election for Congress were held today whether they would vote Republican or Democrat, 37 percent of adults say they would vote for the Republican candidate while 41 percent say they would vote for the Democratic candidate. This is a slight improvement for Republicans since January when 34 percent said they would vote Republican and 43 percent said they would vote Democratic. Perhaps the recent resignation announcement by Majority Leader Tom DeLay helped the Republicans.

hungrycoyote: That lawyer sure has his hands full…..the lack of input from the administration is once again, criminal. Halliburton is the absolute worst out of all of them. Thank goodness that at least they got Martha Stewart.

OT: I’m going to New York next week. Anyone know of any good street fairs going on?

Cool! So I guess now that we are all anti-Sierra Club, Kos and Firedoglake communities are going to provide technical support to communtiy groups on environmental issues, litigation support, writing legislation. Kos and Jane are going to educate Senate and House staffers on environmental issues and counteract industry hacks. Kos and Firedoglake communities are going to mobilize protests when developers encroach on land, and provide media support.

Of course, this is a full time job, so once Kos and Jane begin their respective hiring processes for lawyers, researchers, scientists, PR people, and support staff I’ll be the first to have my resume in.

For a group of people who claim to be in the reality based community, claim to despise the sort of lockstep and groupthink popular with republicans, I see a lot of groupthink and lockstep on the blogs today on the Sierra Club issue. When you guys decide to rejoin the reality-based community, please educate yourselves on the nature of advocacy groups.

I think I’ll continue to support the Sierra Club while voting Democratic, thank you.

dengre @ #14 and MoCrash @ 17 — Back in the late 1970s, there were still “blueblood” Republicans (pro environmental protections, fiscally responsible). They were the first of Ralph Reed’s roadkill.

selise @ 59 — I don’t run the place, nor do I make the rules here. However, it seems to me that FDL tries to provide a place to exchange ideas and you make a point worth considering.

The fundamental issue — as long as the Senate committee chairs rest in the hands of the Republicans there will be no oversight of [this] administration

egregious @ #68 — I also worry about election fraud. The Repubs need those Diebold voting machines in order to retain control of committee chair positions.

Carl Pope is symptomatic of how wretchedly dysfunctional US politics have become. Not evil; just another frog who didn’t realilze how hot the water has become. And he’s mostly cooked at this point. Very sad.

ccmask: That really does gets to the heart of a so much of it. The recognition that so many of the silent knew it was wrong, but they were “patriots.â€
The concept that there is a core “we†or “me†who knows what is right and will do the right thing and the rules that are needed for others – for the “bad guys†aren’t really needed for me, bc I am only going to round up and turn over to military detention “bad guys†and the FBI will only use secret NSLs on “bad guys†and we will only drop the warrant requirement for listening in on bad guys and we are the ones who can be trusted and we won’t be swayed or seduced by that power. My quote from the other night: ” what is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.” Cicero.

From Negroponte’s recent speech http://tinyurl.com/s9gcy
we learn that sure, we have Suspected senior al Qaeda leaders in U.S. captivity They may be put on trial eventually but for now they are too valuable as sources of intelligence Really? After how long? Under what kinds of “interrogation? Do we even have the names right? How will anyone ever know?

It doesn’t matter, bc “I can’t overstate the importance of that information in the prosecution of the war on terror, so all is fair. And beside, we believe it would certainly be a mistake to turn these people loose while the war on terror is going on,” he added. Uh, how is that the other option? Turning them “loose?†Especially when later he says: “Surely, at some point, it may prove desirable that they be brought to prosecution, to face justice. But that is something that I think will have to be decided in the future,” Negroponte said.
*sigh* I really don’t understand why the CIA agents in the Harper’s article are worried. DOJ is cutting loose whistleblowers under the Gonzales/Addington/Goss vendetta, but it is happy to provide public cover for rendition and torture.

It’s why Cunningham and Abramoff and Plame are all interesting and show good work from dedicated people, but I’ll have a hard time ever feeling that DOJ did anything but disappoint in the end. I don’t care if Scooter Libby goes to jail. I do care that we are not a country whose Justice Department has enshrined torture as public policy. I know, supposedly the memo (at least one) was “quietly withdrawn†but that’s bull and really who’s to say it hasn’t been just as quietly “reinstated� Like the quote from Nuremberg – there has to be a voice that stands up and calls it wrong and we did not have ONE in Justice. It’s such a shame.

Richard 99 - that’s childish. Why bother to “vote democratic†and support an entity that is going to campaign them? Why not just go ahead and vote Republican bc S.C. with all your dollars and all that great legislation and support etc. – they’ll just have those Republican’s passing all kinds of pro-environment legislation. Yep, to turn it around, why should Jane or Kos or anyone else bother to support those Democrats when S.C. has it all covered with their endorsements of Republicans who will handle the environment with such stellar results. No campaigning, no progressive fundraisers, no GOTV, no hours upon hours of roots projects, networking, goading-invigling-threatening the Democratic party into taking pro-environmental stands. S.C. has it all covered.
That kind of thing is just “see me stomp my foot†childish. If someone thinks $$ will help the environment more by going into a Dem’s hands in that race than by going to S.C. to endorse Republican candidates, then that will be their choice. If they think that SC’s making a good long term decision for the environment with their stance, the $$ will go to it.

Mary 102:

Money that goes to the Sierra Club goes primarily to professionals like scientist and lawyers who provide techincal support to legislators and communities. When the Democrats retake the legislature, who do you think they are going to turn to to write the legislation and regulations that protect the environment? Their staffers? No, the Democrats who care about the environment are going to turn to groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC.

I remember many years ago when I worked for MFY Legal Services in New York. New York has a really good lead paint law. Guess who wrote it? The Sierra Club and NYPIRG. Legal and scientific experts worked together to create a law that would pass legal muster and provide maximum protection to tenants. SC, NYPIRG, and MFY fought hard to get the DEMOCRATIC NY city council to vote their conscience (and not be cowed by developers and landlords). When mayor Bloomberg ordered the city law department not to defend the city’s law, MFY, NYPIRG, and SC stepped in to defend the law against developers and landlords. The question is simple Mary 102: can you provide the same technical support to communities as SC? I didn’t think so.

So again, can the communities at Kos and Firedoglake provide the same support services as the Sierra Club? Are the people here willing to spend their time on full-time projects? Do the people here have the requisite technical expertise to replace the SC even if they are willing to do so? I really doubt it, or they would be doing it already. When you grow up, you will come to realize this. Kos and Jane simply do not understand how issue advocacy works. I do because I’ve worked in the field.

The great thing about advocacy groups like the Sierra Club is that they are always working to further the issues that matter. In the end, the issues are why we vote democratic. So yeah, the Sierra Club throws the other guys some credit when they have been exceptional on environmental issues (which Chafee has been - that 20% figure thrown around earlier was a lie). Why not encourage and reward Republicans when they do the right thing? Rewarding individuals for doing the right thing will remind the DLCers that they are not entitled to our support - remind them that we expect them to perform. The goal of partisanship is advancing issues, but you are putting the cart before the horse.

And in the end, I’d still vote Democratic if I lived in RI anyway. But I also realize that SC will always work to keep the environment healthy because they believe in it, whereas many politicians (even Dems) have to have their feet held to the fire.

Richard - see, you can make points without being nasty to FDL for not walking your path. However, you are still wide of the point.

“Money that goes to the Sierra Club goes primarily to professionals like scientist and lawyers who provide techincal support to legislators and communities. When the Democrats retake the legislature, who do you think they are going to turn to to write the legislation and regulations that protect the environment? “

The Dems don’t “retake the legislature” when entities like Sierra Club endorse , publically, Republicans like Chaffee over their Dem. challengers. So, when the Dems do NOT retake Congress bc of poorly thought through endorsement policies by entities like S.C., how mcuch “legislation writing” do you think S.C. will get a shot at?

You point doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it exists surrounded by the very tough, real issues of throttling Republican control right now. I’m fine with you donating however you choose, but I think it is shortsighted to go with pro-Republican policies and endorsements when so much is on the line, not just with respect to the environment - but also things like war and the Consitutional relationships of our government branches.

Dems WILL hold their politicians feet to the fire, esp on enironmental issues. WIll REpublicans? If so - vote for them and be happy to have S.C. endorse them. If not, don’t be so quick to snap at those who think S. C. is freakin nuts to jump into the Republican ship at such a sensitve time.

P.S.You forgot to mention the guys who make the calendars. ;-) They do a nice job.

If you all really think that the Sierra Club is the wanker of the day, then you have had a really, really good day. I don’t understand, for example, how anyone with any sense in their head is willing to associate with today’s Republican party. However, some otherwise sane people still do consider themselves Republicans and probably always will. What these posts seem to be saying is that the Sierra Club should be forced to decide today to abandon any Republican support forever or face the angry wrath of the blogosphere. This reminds of nothing more than George Bush’s diplomatic techniques. I’m not saying that Lincoln Chaffee is sane, insane, evil, or good, but the Sierra Club has the right to endorse whoever they want on the basis of their own judgement. This is bullshit.
jim

Mary:

Are any Democrats really going to jump ship over this endorsement? Get real.

Having worked for advocacy groups (both MFY and the NRDC) I can tell you that job #

Mary:

Are any Democrats really going to jump ship over this endorsement? Get real.

Having worked for advocacy groups (both MFY and the NRDC) I can tell you that job #1 is the issue you are advocating. You don’t quit promoting the environment when the Republicans are in charge. If the Republican are in charge you end up having to work with them. You can’t spend 2 to 6 years letting the environment go to shit for the sake of party purity.

I can also tell you from my time at MFY that Democratic politicians remain, unfortunately, politicans. Unless they come into office with the environment in mind, you have to win them over on the issue. In general, no matter what your issue is, there is no guarantee that the representatives from your party will do the right thing. And we are about the issues, right? And when you get down to it, the SC and NRDC have been alot more reliable then the Democratic Party. Sorry, but you know its true.

I have been disgusted today by the ignorance displayed on various blogs as to how issue advocay works. Again, for a group of people calling themselves “the reality based community”, the blogs and commentators are as out of touch as as a pack of mouthbreathers who utilize talk radio as their only source of information. FDL, Kos, etc. are incapable of providing technical and legal support on an issue like the environment. And this support is needed 24/7 no matter who is in charge. Granted, momentum tends to be more forward when the Democrats are in power. But, that doesn’t obviate the need to be effective at staying in place when the Republicans are in power. So yes, the Sierra Club will continue to get my money, and the Dems will continue to get my vote. I’ll leave the lockstep, groupthink, and destructive purity to the Republicans.

There is probably no reasoning with the ill-informed, but let me try one more time. If you pull your support from the Sierra Club over one endorsement you don’t agree with, you are also pulling your support from hundreds of endorsements of Democratic candidates at all levels of government, and thousands of unpaid volunteers who work on political campaigns in addition to all of the other work they do on issues that you care about, and the paid staff that provide the backup technical and legal support. That sounds like a pretty good definition of Wanker Of The Day to me.

Are any Democrats really going to jump ship over this endorsement?

I have no idea what this means? What I mentioned was S.C. jumping into the Republican ship to carry them through and that I think it is a very bad idea, at this point in time in particular. What are you talking about?

Democrats abandoning the environment bc of S.C.? Of course not - that was my point. The environment means something to Dems and they will hold their polticians feet to the fire on it. However, if S.C. insteads loads the deck with Republicans, it doesn’t get the benefit of those Dems that will support the environment bc they do not have anyone in office representing their interest.

You’ll have to explain what you mean about Dems jumping ship bc I can’tfit it into any context. Do you just mean - quite contributing to S.C. (or buying the calendars *g*) - oh yeah, I definitely believe that some will bc I know I will. There is so much on the line right now, I won’t forget that their take on the current state of this country is that they need to endorse and support a Republican candidate who helped Bush implement all kinds of programs that have hurt this country and who helped insure Alito on the Supreme COurt. I’ll leave the “mouthbreathers” comments to you bc you seem so enamoured with them, but I think it is a horrible decision and there are too many organizations out there to go with the ones that make horrible decisions that affect my life and affect it adversely.

You don’t quit promoting the environment when the Republicans are in charge. Duh? The question is - who makes it easier for you to promote the environment? If you think it is Republicans, then go in peace. If you actually believe (through your statement that you will be voting Dem) that Dems will be easier to work with - then why are you so hostile to anyone challenging the short sightedness of backing Republicans over Dems.

You can’t spend 2 to 6 years letting the environment go to shit for the sake of party purity. Nope, and more power to you in that work. But if you find that, bc S.C. helped put more Republicans in office, teh environment does go more and more to sh*t, bc the Republicans don’t have constituents holding their feet to the fire, how do you reconcile your fervor? The old saying is: you made your bed. That’s what S.C. is doing, and expecting Dems who they hurt to nonetheless give them a thumbs up. Well, I won’t. It is way too critical an election and there are envrionmental orgs that don’t play the sellout game as blatantly.

Democratic politicians remain, unfortunately, politicans. Unless they come into office with the environment in mind, you have to win them over on the issue. Again, duh. But more than that, you are at least in part wrong, bc they feel, not only your heat, but constituent’s heat and party heat. “Winning over” when their Dem base REQUIRES them to toe the line on the environment and where the party and party leadership have state positions does not put you in the underdog slot.

And we are about the issues, right? ??? What “we”? You haven’t sold me that you and I are a “we” on any of this yet. If you want to donate to endorsers of the man who intimidates scientists into silence - “we” aren’t at “we.”

I am so close to bolting the Dem party it is hanging by a hair, but if it were to happen, it would be to go much further AWAY from the Republican party - not right into its arms endorsing its candidates.

I have been disgusted today by the ignorance displayed on various blogs as to how issue advocay works.

Depends on what your “issue” is, doesn’t it? A blog like this one is not a single issue blog and isn’t an advocacy blog, although it is developing some tentacles in that area. If you want a S.C. or environmental advocacy blog, then the thing to do is probably start one, not get peeved that the “Plame” site doesn’t organize S.C. advocacy to your liking. ???

Again, for a group of people calling themselves “the reality based communityâ€, the blogs and commentators are as out of touch as as a pack of mouthbreathers who utilize talk radio as their only source of information.

ROFL. Yep, I can see how you so effectively advocate your issue. That’s the approach that will do it every time.

FDL, Kos, etc. are incapable of providing technical and legal support on an issue like the environment. And oddly enough, S.C. and CHaffee are incapable of protecting the Constitution, protecting the Supreme Court, protecting civil liberties. Your take is that those things don’t mean anything - bc everyone HAS to be nice to S.C. no matter how much they shoot us in the back, bc somehow they are the only source of drafting capabilities.

No one has even begun to intimate that you have to go along with “group think” rather, you are the one getting pissy and name calling bc someone isn’t doing or advocating what YOU want. And what you still haven’t brought sense to why you contribute money to a group that endorses Republicans, when you seem to agree they are not the best critters to have in office for your issues, much less the other important issues that mean someting to others.

Sure you should contribute to S.C. if you want, but you are projecting on the “group think” issue. I think it’s stupid to contibute to an org that is all about putting more Repubs in office, now in particular. You’ve called more names and with more hostility, but I dont’ think that equates with making more sense. Again, if you think the environment is better suited with more Republicans in office, fine. If you, in your inner heart, don’t, what kind of groupthink are you caught in that you wouldn’t even take pencil to paper and tell S.C. it’s a bad idea?

Too much that’s important on the line. If S.C. and their Republican endorsements buy you a nice tactical nukes situation with Iran, I’m sure the legislation that S.C. can draft and not get passed with a Republican Congress will serve in good stead. Or maybe not.

Its more about gaining influence than standing up for a belief.

Can I ask all those working for ‘liberal advocacy organizations’ to start including their own personal 2nd and 3rd most important “lib” issues into their criteria when decision making?

Always looking for the best bang for the buck (Chaffee is the favorite, money spent there will result in a “friendly” Senator) is really only supposed to apply to the stock market. Life takes a LOT of maintenance as well and supporting people that MAINTAIN the ‘liberal’ mindset pays off much greater than largest windfall profit of the Pay to Play of Republicans.

Thank you for all the hard work, but please remember the larger picture because your advocacy group really would have a hard time even existing without that base.

Actually, owlbear1, health care is my number one issue - but you do see how a healthy environment is vital to that goal right?

The Sierra Club is not about pay-to-play. The Sierra Club is about facts on the ground. And the facts on the ground, the reality of the situation, is that on the federal level the Republicans are in control. The Republicans are mostly stooges for inductry, which means the sound environmental strategy is to work to stop the Republicans from eroding the environmental measures that exist. That means working with Republicans - like it or not. And given the vital role that Chafee has played in stopping Bush, it makes sense to endorse him. It also sends a message to any potential DLC Democrats that what counts is performance - not merely a ‘D’ next to the name.

You and Mary seem to advocate that groups like the Sierra Club abandon the environment when the Republicans are in power in favor of electioneering for Democrats. Of course if you do that, then there may not be an environment to preserve after the Republicans are done. It also sends a message to the DLCer that they too can be a stooge for industry because groups like the Sierra Club will always put partisanship before the environment.

I dare say, owlbear1, that like mary above you have no idea how issue advocacy works. You might want to look into how it works. You might want also to be a little more cynical about politicians in general. You are falling into the Kos trap of believing that if we just elect Democrats that all will be well in the country. Having worked with Democratic politicians, I can tell you that you need to hedge your bets a bit.

Jane, you mischaracterize the Bush administration. They will not sell off all our natural resources to the highest bidder. We can be sure that some cronies who are well-connected will get the resources on a no-bid low-balled basis.

It was disingenuous of Kos to publish the 20% figure since it came from cherry-picked statistics. And Jane, I’m a fan of yours, but you were a little too breezy in brushing it off as “if we’re wrong, we apologize.” Seems to me that you have an obligation to check something you base an entire post on–by going to the source (in this case, SC itself).

Once you get rid of the 20% number, the question then becomes, “Chaffee has a pretty good record on the environment, but the SC shouldn’t support him because he’s a republican.” To me that’s a different question than, “Chaffee has a terrible record on the environment and he’s a republican too.” I’m sure we can find plenty of dems in both houses with worse enviro records than Chaffee. Plenty of people here say they don’t care about Chaffee’s enviro record, but the way the issue was posed initially tends to downplay it. It’s sort of like the Kerry is a flip-flopper meme–sticks in people’s minds even after it’s disproven.

But, bear with me and I’ll get around to piling on the SC club too. Issue groups, when they get too big, tend to get moribund and inbred. They’re much like government that way–once funding is assured, they start to make decisions autonomously of their membership. Their rationale is, “we know more than the general public, so we’re entitled to sit up here on our lofty perch and steer the organization wherever we want it to go.” Goblin makes some good points, but in the end, that’s what he’s saying.

SC doesn’t owe the blogosphere anything. But their members (many of whom are part of the blogosphere) have the right to question this policy and influence the SC that they pay to be part of. Myself, I disagree with the “we aren’t partisan” answer that Pope gave, but not vehemently enough to withdraw my membership. One thing I’ve learned from working on enviro policy is that sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

i’m dropping my membership TODAY. we should all do so.

that, they will get.

You and Mary seem to advocate that groups like the Sierra Club abandon the environment when the Republicans are in power in favor of electioneering for Democrats.

Met Jeffie lately?

Where did I ever say that? You have dug yourself into a hole and you think calling it a mountain changes the reality. I never even mentioned S.C. endorsing Dems for that matter and I personally don’t think it is appropriate for them to endorse candidates, period. But if they do, you “seem to advocate that groups like Sierra Club endorse use of nuclear weapons, loosening of air and water quality standards, and sell offs of public lands for private development bc the Republican are, after all, in power.”

See, those types of arguments fail every test of logic and it is easier to see when they get bounced back at you than when you pull them out of the hat. What I am saying is that S.C. IS ABANDONING the environment BY ELECTIONEERING for REPUBLICANS. Not only that, they are endorsing the war machine which has drastic and catastrophic enironmental effects. Toss in enabling the dismemberment of the Constitution and say it’s all “necessary” bc S.C. is the only one who can draft legislation, is just silly.

TO go back to one of your earlier points, has S.C. more consistently proferred pro-environment positions than the Dems? Absolutely. Is that the issue? No - bc S.C. can not IMPLEMENT its proffers. The question is: Who has more consistently been willing to implement pro-environment legislation, Republicans or Democrats? As long as you are comfortable with S.C.’s decision that it is best off by putting Republicans in office over their Dem challengers - fine, but don’t try to shove that down anyone else’ throat as your own “groupthink” position without some evidence that a) environmental legislation is better off with Republicans in Congress and b) the overall Republican Congressional direction does not need change to protect the people, the COnsitution, world stability AND the environment.

You are acting like a momma bear who feels her cub is threatened, but you charge the game warden and not the poacher.

Mary says:
What I am saying is that S.C. IS ABANDONING the environment BY ELECTIONEERING for REPUBLICANS.

Which is clear partisan hackery. The world isn’t that simple, and I thank god that the SC exists to protect us from naive folks like Mary.

The Marys of the world can only see their partisan short-term goal of changing red to blue, whereas the SC exists to protect the environment — for the long term. And the long term is not served by the SC becoming just another partisan shop.

Real environmentalists understand this. We’re in this for the long haul.

Now, that being said, people who donate to the SC based upon the mistaken belief that they are a subsidiary of the Dem party should indeed stop supporting them; however, they should also stop bashing SC for not being a Dem tool.

The bottom line is that the goals of people like Kos and Hampsher differ from that of the SC, and instead of honestly acknowledging this, people like Kos and Hamsher resort to lies, name calling, and bullying to paint SC as an irrational/immoral/corrupt actor. This kind of behavior makes Kos and Hamsher little different from the likes of Michelle Malkin.

I haven’t trusted Carl Pope since Sierra Club endorsed the Clinton timberlands deal. At least the Audubon Society and a few other enviros kept their priorities intact. But not Carl Pope.

All too plainly obvious that these people have no clue about the way that the House and Senate are organized. The same holds true for those smug, ignorant asses who stick their noses in the air (That’s always the pose. Ever notice?)and say ‘I vote for the man.’

Disputo. You just don’t get it do you.