Skip to main content

Earlier today I was looking around for a theme for tonight's climate letter.  I was making OFA phone calls between students (I probably made 40-50 calls...not a lot but I'll do some more soon), and (on a second web browser) doing that search-engine manipulation thingie we've been hearing about.

I decided to dig up negative-sounding links about Dave Reichert (WA-08), who's being challenged by Susan DelBene after previously defeating Darcy Burner.  Reichert's a pretty odious fellow, and an idiot.  I got a bunch of good stuff.

And I also found this, which is a couple of weeks old; it probably got diaried here at the time, but I missed it.

And I got mad.

The League Of Conservation Voters endorses a Republican, Dave Reichert (WA-08).

The LCV Press Release includes these words:

"We are proud to endorse Congressman Reichert for re-election because he supports policies that will not only build a clean energy economy that gets Washington’s workers back on the job, but will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil and curb harmful pollution," said LCV Action Fund President Gene Karpinski.

You may recall that the League of Conservation Voters also endorsed Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election.  Granted, Lieberman has been better on climate than he was on healthcare...but fact remains that he helped legitimate huge chunks of the Cheney administration's acts of destruction — which surely should count against him on the environmental-good-guy-o-meter.

I go into this every time one of the LCV people call me.  They sigh; it is my hope that I'm not the only one telling them this.

Today I was moved to send the following to Gene Karpinski, le grande fromage du LCV.  Perhaps some of you might be interested in doing something similar?

Gene Karpinski
League of Conservation Voters
1920 L Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Karpinski — I've been wanting to get this letter off my chest for a long time — since 2006, to be exact.  I've repeated its words fairly often; I do so every time I speak to a fundraiser from the League of Conservation Voters (at least once every three months).

I want to explain to you, just as I explain to them, why I have chosen not to give any money to the LCV.    I was bitterly disappointed when your organization chose to endorse Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race.  I now see you've done something similar in your endorsement of Washington congressman Dave Reichert.

That is to say, you've shot yourselves in the foot.  I imagine that there are more such instances, but I don't want to look for them; I feel soiled enough already.

There are profound flaws in your procedure for candidate endorsements, which is based on tallying the number of "pro-environment" and "anti-environment" votes by a particular legislator.  But how on earth could you miss the fact that by 2006, Joe Lieberman's  panderings to the Bush Administration had allowed them to  claim the blessings of bipartisanship upon their wars, their financial  chicanery, their ineptitude, their environmental irresponsibility (nay,  criminality)?  And how on earth could you miss the fact that Dave Reichert, at a May gathering of Republican strategists, bragged that his "pro-environment" votes were just cynical gamesmanship?

To be fair, Mr. Reichert could actually be a secret environmentalist  double-agent lying to his own party's  strategists.  But I think it's more likely that (as he admitted to the  "Mainstream Republicans" group in 2006, speaking of his  "pro-environment" votes), "...when the leadership comes to me and says, 'Dave we need you to  take a vote over here, because we want to protect you and keep this  majority,' I do it."

By short-sightedly structuring your endorsement policy around the sole criterion of counted votes, you enable cynical politicians to manipulate the system.  The mechanism is obvious; waiting until the majority of votes have been counted on a bill often allows an unscrupulous legislator to cast a politically expedient vote (one that, perhaps, makes him likelier to get endorsed by a leading environmental group) which appears to run counter to his party's platform.  Thus Dave Reichert gets your endorsement, despite the fact that his 90/10 Republican voting record has been part and parcel of the "Party of No" strategy (a strategy that has now fostered a whole Republican subculture of anti-science denialists who threaten to derail progress on climate completely).  And thus Joe Lieberman got your approval.

And that's what I tell your fund-raisers, and it's what I'm telling you.

I'll give you a pass on Lieberman and start donating again — if you repudiate Dave Reichert, and make a significant change in the LCV's endorsement process.

I'd love to give you some money.  I don't have much, but you're welcome to some of it.  But I'm damned I'll give a dime to an organization that — when it comes to the environment — can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Yours Sincerely,


If anyone wants to contact the League of Conservation Voters to tell them something similar, here's their contact info.

Or you could try doing it the old-fashioned way.  That'd be good.  Here's the address again:

Gene Karpinski
League of Conservation Voters
1920 L Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036

PHONE: 202-785-8683
FAX: 202-835-0491

Crossposted at Running Gamak.

Originally posted to WarrenS' Blog on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:23 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site