Swing State Project

« 2006 Attorneys General Races | Main | CT-Sen: Lieberman Now in Negative Territory Among "Liberals" »

Thursday, April 20, 2006

RI-Sen: Sierra Club Endorsing Chafee (R)

Posted by DavidNYC

I'm sure you've already seen this elsewhere on the Internets today: The Sierra Club is endorsing Lincoln Chafee, the Republican Senator from Rhode Island.

I have one very, very simple response to this: My goal in life is to elect and support Democrats. My corrollary goal, naturally, is to oppose Republicans and boot them from office. Barring the most extraordinary of circumstances, if your goal ever involves electing or supporting Republicans, I will never support you. I don't care what your rationale for bipartisanship is - it's one I will never share.

The Sierra Club can do what it likes. If they think supporting Chafee is the bees' knees, they can be my guest. They are, of course, incredibly and totally wrong. But I have no interest in debating them on their own terms. They're engaged in a different project than I am. If they care, I can tell them that I'll never give them money if they continue to support Republicans. But they probably don't - I think they've come to the cynical conclusion that they're apt to rake in more dollars if they appear bi- or non-partisan.

Anyhow, let me draw on a little bit of history which I think is instructive. When many American Jews felt that the most prominent pro-Israel organizations in this country were too right-leaning, what did they do? They went out and founded the New Israel Fund, a much more progressive group which today plays an important role in American-Israeli affairs. People committed to environmental activism and the election of Democrats would do well to heed this lesson. The Sierra Club may one day find itself with a serious rival if it insists on being this out-of-step with reality.

Posted at 11:09 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Rhode Island | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2296

Comments

10-4, David. 10-4.

Posted by: Stuart O'Neill at April 21, 2006 12:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

But on the plus side, the Steve Laffey campaign has gotta be loving this. Let's hope he makes hay out of it and reminds Rhode Island Republicans they're about to support a guy endorsed by the Sierra Club.

Posted by: Mark at April 21, 2006 01:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

You guys really know how to make Libertarian and moderate feel welcome in the Democratic Party.

P.S--- I hope Chaffee wins the primary and the election and then if Democrats are one vote shy of taking control of the senate--the Rhode island boy switches sides.

Posted by: nasir at April 21, 2006 02:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Does anyone know Chafee's voting record off hand? As a republican was he a rubber stamp for "clear skies" and "clean water?" If he voted against them I could see why the sierra club might endorse out of appreciation... but if they really wanted to fight for the environment instead of trying to appear bipartisan they would help elect a democratic majority to block any crap bush throws their way.

Posted by: Ferris at April 21, 2006 07:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

nasir, there's zero chance of that happening. After the RNC invests millions of dollars and tons of resources to re-elect Chafee this fall, they'll own him. The time when Chafee was able to switch parties has passed. He's a Republican for life now.

Posted by: Mark at April 21, 2006 08:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Any organization that's not an explicitly Democratic organization is going to occasionally do things that support its purpose rather than the purposes of the Democratic Party. The Sierra Club apparently isn't willing to hang its hopes on the slim chance that the Democrats will retake the Senate this year.

Most of the non-Democratic organizations people support (especially the companies) are probably far more Republican-supporting than the Sierra Club, so maybe there are more important places to start a purge of imperfectly line-toeing organizations.

The question is whether the Sierra Club as a whole is good for the Democratic Party or not, even if it occasionally supports a Republican who supports its mission. I think it is. I'm going to continue to support the Sierra Club, but I will make a donation to Chafee's opponent larger than whatever my Sierra Club membership's contribution to SC's support of Chafee is.

Mark, I think you're right that Chafee won't switch, but I'm not sure about your explanation. I wonder why this idea of "ownership" by the party didn't apply to all those Democrats who've switched over recent decades.

Posted by: KCinDC at April 21, 2006 10:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

KCinDC, the Democratic Party had little financial investment in the political ascendancy of Richard Shelby, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Nathan Deal, and Billy Tauzin. Even the Republicans didn't spend much on Jim Jeffords back in 2000. Comparatively, Lincoln Chafee's re-election will only be possible with fists full of mullah and holding-their-nose support from the RNC. Bolting the GOP now would be the greatest act of betrayal in recent political history....and judging from Chafee's loyalty to his father's partisan legacy, I highly doubt he's capable of it.

Posted by: Mark at April 21, 2006 11:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Again, I think he won't switch parties if Democrats are not in majority or are two or three votes shy of a majority. Just like Senator Jeffords, he will only switch parties when it shifts power to the Democrats.
These senators can't switch parties at any time. Just look at other senators--switch only comes at a time of great importance(big bang). We should only look at Democrats leaving the party in 1994(Senator Shelby).

Posted by: nasir at April 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

so maybe there are more important places to start a purge of imperfectly line-toeing organizations.

Purge? Where is that idea coming from? What would that even mean in this context?

I simply said that I have a different mission in life than the Sierra Club does, and that I don't plan on supporting their mission.

Posted by: DavidNYC at April 21, 2006 02:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I mean purging from the list of organizations you support. Since the organizations most people support include a host of companies whose products they buy that no doubt do far more damage to the Democratic Party than supporting a single moderate Republican senator, it seems a bit much to focus on denouncing the Sierra Club as a bunch of unprincipled greedheads rather than, say, boycotting Republican-supporting companies.

No organization is perfectly aligned with my mission in life. I disagree with some things the ACLU does, but I remain a card-carrying member. I disagree with many things the Democratic Party does, but I remain a Democracy Bond holder. I disagree with the Sierra Club's endorsement of Chafee, but I remain a member, because I think that over all the organization does far more good than harm.

If you believe that the Sierra Club's endorsement has such a powerful effect on elections, then why doesn't its endorsement of far more Democratic candidates outweigh this one example of departure from the party line?

Posted by: KCinDC at April 21, 2006 04:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Again, I think he won't switch parties if Democrats are not in majority or are two or three votes shy of a majority. Just like Senator Jeffords, he will only switch parties when it shifts power to the Democrats.
These senators can't switch parties at any time. Just look at other senators--switch only comes at a time of great importance(big bang). We should only look at Democrats leaving the party in 1994(Senator Shelby).

With the national mood favoring the Dems why wouldn't he switch parties now. He may lose his committee chairmanship, but it would increase the Dems chances of taking back the senate significantly and he would face only nominal opposition in his US Senate race instead of being the third of fourth most endangered Republican.

Posted by: safi at April 21, 2006 07:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment