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.

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.

that, they will get.

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.

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.