I had a meeting with a senior leader in the environmental movement about a year ago, and we discussed among other things Democratic Senate prospects for 2008. He was really excited about Mark Udall, the Boulder liberal running for Senate in Colorado, who had excellent ratings on the various checklists used by the environmental groups. I expressed skepticism, because I remembered his flip-flop on Iraq. Udall, in 2002, voted against the war, but in 2007, he voted for a blank check bill funding the war to prepare for his role as a 'moderate' candidate running for Senate in Colorado. After I criticized him, Udall wrote this Op-Ed in the Denver Post explaining his vote, lashing out at antiwar critics who would immorally withhold equipment and medical supplies from American troops. He has subsequently done a number of things, both good and bad, but most significantly voting to cave on FISA, using a smarmy and dishonest rationale about telecom companies still being subjected to criminal prosecution.
I've always been clear about my criteria being the bar fight primary. Loyalty to principles when it is hard, and not when you are looking at a checklist of largely meaningless procedural and easily gamed votes, is how I judge people in politics. And I think lots of new progressives, most of us reading this site, get that. Disagreements are important, but loyalty on core principles is paramount.
Maybe you think that this has nothing to do with the environmental movement, just the war and civil liberties. But you'd be wrong. When a candidate doesn't feel enough heat for taking advantage of his supporters, he learns that taking advantage of his supporters is a politically profitable thing to do. Udall, for instance, is listed as one of the top prospects on the Give Green LCV fund, due to his 99% lifetime score on the LCV scorecard and his opponent's 5% score. And he may be a good bet, considering that it's better to have a conservative Democrat in the Senate than a Republican.
But it's worth noting that Mark Udall, one of the 'strongest' environmental advocates from his perch as a Congressman from Denver, just reversed his stance on offshore drilling to become a staunch supporter of the oil industry. Just look at this rhetoric.
But both Udall and his staff emphasized that the nation's energy crisis called for a sweeping rethinking of possible solutions - and that the country could no longer afford to keep much of anything off the table.
I'm going to guess that a 'sweeping rethinking' of his pro-environment philosophy is not a good thing for the organizational goals of the environmental groups that have supported him. And in fact, Udall embraced the Gang of 10 proposal spearheaded by Ken Salazar, which includes egregious liquid coal subsidies.
Udall's endorsement risks alienating some of his strongest allies among the environmental movement, many of whom have poured money into this campaign and who this week criticized not just the offshore drilling component of the compromise but also heavy new subsidies for controversial liquid-coal projects it contains.
If the environmental 'movement' were serious about their objectives, they would cut off his funding and get really ugly about how Udall betrayed them. They would have to deal with a barrage of calls from powerful people like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, but on the other hand, they would make a clear statement about people who cross red lines.
"For us, it's really easy to say the Group of 10's proposal is a bad proposal and it should not be the starting point for any legislation," said Tony Massaro, vice president of the League of Conservation Voters, although he added that there was no litmus test for the group's support of any candidate, including offshore drilling.
And Mark Udall and Democrats heard Massaro loud and clear.
STATE BLOGS
