Most of those advocacy groups are too old... (0.00 / 0)

and have become establishment. And that's why their  established leadership doesn't want to hurt long term acquantances and friends. Part of it is related to the Stockholm Syndrome. And the other part is fear of change. Because change may not only mean new representatives, but alos new leadership for their organisations. So, the only way to change this is imho to actively work for new, fresh minds taking over the jobs of the same old, gridlocked ones. This will be the most effective way to ensure a new direction, everything else is just a waste of time and efforts.

---

by: Gray @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 23:54:16 PM UTC

lcv is just (0.00 / 0)

like naral, support your friends rather then those that support your agenda, politics as usual, get rid of the old guard no matter the politics.

---

by: pc @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 00:20:27 AM UTC

bingo (0.00 / 0)

Groups like this support anyone who votes marginally along with them, even over someone who would be overwhelmingly with them, because they don't want to disturb the relationship.  That's especially true with members of the "opposite" party like Collins and Shays, where they could go hardcore anti-environmental and be more in line with the rest of their party.

---

by: midnight rambler @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 17:37:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Single issue stuff like this drives me up a wall. (4.00 / 2)

In 2006, the Sierra Club endorsed incumbent Republican Charlie Bass for his primary, because he had a primary opponent who favored ANWR drilling while he didn't.

Of course, what Sierra chose to ignore was that Bass' opponent was token opposition that would never have come close to winning.  So the outcome was that Bass got an endorsement he was able to parade well past the primary, epsecially since Sierra did not (to the best of my knowledge) endorse in the general election.  Thank god that despite Sierra he didn't win and we have a much more reliably pro-environment Democrat in Paul Hodes in NH-02 now.

Here's my theory: single issue groups that have obvious affinities with overall left-wing politics, in order not to appear lopsided, seek out Republicans to endorse.  Often, to the frustration of progressives in New England, they choose their candidates here, because they tend to be a notch more moderate than other regions of GOPers.

The LCV Collins/Shay endorsements, sadly, seem to reinforce my theory.

Blue Hampshire - Defeating Republicans since 2006.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:43:13 AM UTC

Stay on this (0.00 / 0)

I hammered on this when the Sierra Club chapter called to get me to re-up. They've developed a program that let's you be a member of a local chapter and NOT the national. Highly desirable that more of us exacerbate this internal tension, because stupid support of long time incumbents is harming Sierra Club's goals.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 18:22:02 PM UTC

We need a strategy to change this (0.00 / 0)

Too many advocacy groups have adapted to the partisan gridlock of recent years by taking a nonpartisan stance. They protect the appearance of independence by endorsing the occasional relatively moderate repub. I suppose that this is due to the desire to maintain lines of communication in both parties, as well as to the tax laws.  

This may have some tactical benefit, but of course it is a strategic disaster.  Any Senator who votes to pack the federal judiciary with right wing ideologues vetted by the Federalist Society is part of the problem.

It is too late to change this approach for the 2008 election, but the political environment after the election will be quite different.  It will be in the interest of advocacy groups like LCV and NARAL to change to a progressive coalition strategy.

But that will happen only if progressive activists in the environmental movement, women's movement etc mobilize to make it happen.  Withholding dues from organizations like Sierra Club is counterproductive for this task. Especially in the case of SC, which has significant internal democracy, we should be formulating policy proposals and fielding leadership slates.  

There is no such thing as a free market.

---

by: Albanius @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 20:16:06 PM UTC

ALL League's endorsements should be questioned (0.00 / 0)

I too dropped my Sierra Club membership after some of their more horrid positions. And, I'm appalled that they have turned their back on Darcy's campaign.

Many of these organizations that people have counted on in the past to vet candidates and propositions are increasingly NOT RELIABLE. Case in point in CA would be Common Cause that was given $40K as start-up funds for their anti-11 PAC by Arnold Swarzenneger's main PAC.

As far as the League of Conservation Voter's involvement in our current CA state propositions, they have taken the lead in the NO on 7 (solar)campaign:
"Member list as of 10.17.08
Members of Separate and Independent Environmental Coalition Formed to Defeat Prop. 7:
California League of Conservation Voters"
Is this a position that anyone who has seen their betrayal will respect now??? I seriously doubt it.

If they are making these REPUBLICAN ANTI-PROGRESSIVE endorsements, I think progressives MUST QUESTION ALL of their positions and put them on notice. Those of us who are still members MUST take a leading roll within the groups to try to change their directions. And, by all means let them know why they don't get any more of our contributions.###--LindaSutton

---

by: Linda Sutton @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 15:48:12 PM UTC