Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed Sen. Lieberman

by Tony Massaro, Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:16:44 AM EST

I think debate is good. If someone wants to make the environmental case against Lieberman, email me at stoller at gmail.com. Otherwise I'll do it. - Matt

Hi, my name is Tony Massaro and I'm the Senior Vice President for Political Affairs at the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). As the independent political voice for the environment, we appreciate Matt Stoller inviting us to respond to his recent post (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/11/1919 29/141) about our endorsement of Senator Joe Lieberman (CT). In addition, thank you to the commenters who were quicker than us in educating Matt about how our National Environmental Scorecard works, and specifically how the senator's score dropped significantly during the 108th Congress because he missed a number of votes while campaigning for president (we count absences as negative votes). In fact, Sen. Lieberman's score, while it rose to 70% in our most recent 2005 Scorecard, was still lower than he generally scores (his lifetime LCV score is an 86% which is among the top 15% of sitting U.S. Senators). Once again, the reason for Sen. Lieberman's lower score is mostly because of missed votes (this time due to the death of his mother last June).

In regards to Matt's remaining point about how we should have waited until later in the election cycle to announce our endorsement, we respectfully disagree. Beyond his strong lifetime score, Sen. Lieberman has been a true leader on environmental and public health issues throughout his career in public service, both locally in Connecticut and nationally. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he has spent the last five plus years fighting repeated attempts by the Bush Administration and corporate polluters to rewrite our clean air and clean water laws. He also continues to be a champion on protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling.

Achieving energy independence is arguably one of the key issues for the 2006 and Sen. Lieberman is on the frontlines of this challenge as well. He is a strong advocate for real, clean energy solutions - like conservation, raising fuel efficiency and meaningful investment in renewable sources - which are concrete ways to both reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and combat global warming. In fairness, we are disappointed that he voted for the final energy bill (which is now law), but otherwise his record in among the best in Congress.

Locally, he has never lost touch with the environmental concerns of Connecticut voters as he has worked to preserve and promote the state's natural treasures. Among the environmental accomplishments where the senator has played a role include securing federal protections and funding for two wildlife refuges and the establishment of the first national park in the state at Weir Farm. In February, Sen. Lieberman came out forcefully in opposition to the Broadwater Energy's proposed liquefied natural gas facility on Long Island Sound that would threaten the health and safety of Connecticut families with an unsafe and unwise energy project.

Last week at our endorsement event in Hartford, Connecticut, Senator Lieberman told the story about how when he entered the U.S. Senate in 1989, one of the first meetings he held was with members of the environmental community. Since that day, he has stood by us and therefore we are standing by him now that he faces re-election. In other words, we follow a basic rule of friendship: if you don't support your friends, eventually you won't have too many friends. We follow this rule when considering endorsements of any member of Congress, whether they are a Democrat, Republican or Independent.

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to explain our reasons for endorsing Sen. Lieberman and look forward to continuing this dialogue with the progressive blog community.

If you would like more information about our endorsement of Sen. Lieberman or our Scorecard, please visit us on the web at http://www.lcv.org.

Thanks.

_________________________________
(Paid for by League of Conservation Voters Action Fund, 202-785-8683 and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.)

Tags: environmentalism, Joe Lieberman, LCF, League of Conservation Voters, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Sort by

permalink

What's more important?

A friend who is there when he needs you or a friend who is there when you need him?

by PHDinNYC4Kerry 2006-03-14 05:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

I think this is another example of a non-partisan group missing the forest through the trees. Wouldn't a progressive voting majority be better in the long run than a handful of pro-environment voices drowned out by a corporatist majority?

I guess I can understand why LCV tends to go with a known quantity, rather than taking a chance on an untested candidate. But as far as the progressive blogosphere is concerned, Lieberman is a total sell-out.

LCV's endorsement of Lieberman is tacitly telling voters that they shouldn't vote for Lamont. LCV should have skipped an endorsement during the primary and waited for the general.

by Tod Westlake 2006-03-14 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

I agree with this. They have too much faith in their "scorecard". To many of us, the war in iraq is an environmental issue, inextricably entwined with our dependence on oil. While Lieberman may rate highly when one only looks at "environmental" and "energy" legislation, he subverts those ostensibly laudible votes in ways that aren't measured. The net effect is that he's a vichy dem, and he's duped the LCV. =(

by avh 2006-03-14 07:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Lieberman's record on the environment

Is stellar. Mr. Massero is quite correct when he says that Joe has a great record, and will continue to be a leader on environmental issues. This is just one of many issues that resinates with me, and one of the many reason Joe deserves to be reelected. I will proudly cast my vote for Joe, and hope a lot of others will also. Yes, he is wrong on the war, but no candidate is perfect.

by liebermanlives 2006-03-14 06:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's record on the environment

If he wins the primary, you should vote for him. Are you not a Democrat?

The question is a challenge in the primary and he should be challenged.

by Citizen80203 2006-03-14 06:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's record on the environment

Yes, he's supported the greatest international and foriegn policy blunder we have ever undertaken as a nation, weakening our military and reducing our national security, while remaining blithely unwilling to admit his error, costing countless lives, but. . .

nobody's perfect.

Assinine.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-14 06:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Quite frankly who cares

We need over 50 votes to pass legislation and over 60 to overide a veto. Lieberman plays the issues selecting issues that are safe( won't offend the conservatives). He has no problem doing this at the expense of his party.

Since the current majority has been devastating for progressive issues (conservation being a good example) Liebermans undermining of party principles has severely hurt all progressive issues. We progressives are not looking for a litmus test but this shortsighted approach of backing candidates on single issue has been a disaster.

So please wake up and realize this is not about ideology but about strategy. Long term Lieberman is bad for Democratic issues and therefore he is bad for your issue

by KosTexasliberal 2006-03-14 07:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Stellar?

I think not. He only came out against the Broadwater proposal once it was clear he'd be challenged in a primary. He voted for cloture on Alito, one of the worst possible SCOTUS nominees on the environment. LCV thought Sen. Kerry was a much better on the environment in 2004 when they endorsed him over Lieberman in the presidential primaries.

Joe is a decent Democrat on the environment. People only think he's "stellar" because it's one of the only issues where that minimal description is at all justified.

What's hilarious is how Lieberman has played LCV by dismissing them as "some interest group" when he lost out to Kerry on their endorsement two years ago, and then calling an unprecendented press conference to accept their endorsement this year.

That alone makes LCV look like a joke for endorsing him.

by tparty 2006-03-14 07:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stellar?

Troll rate this guy down.

by Matt Stoller 2006-03-14 07:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stellar?

which guy? liebermanlives or thirdparty?

by jsw 2006-03-14 07:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Single issue burps

Look, the Senator has done some good over the years, this is not the issue. Nor is any single issue, but an encompassing theme of non-partisanship that has cascaded into helping a corrupt president further his agenda.

I have no doubt the Senator is a "nice" guy that shares many issues and values with me. However, he has lost his sense of roots. Once a politician crosses the line of enabler in this age of GOP absolute power, he needs to be challenged by the base. Since the net/base roots have limited resources, we must pick whom we challenge with careful thought. And I'm sure I can talk for a plurality of the base when I say Senator Lieberman is the correct challenge.

by Citizen80203 2006-03-14 06:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

I agree with Tod Westlake.

This is a case of a single issue group fpcusing on the candidate's voting record on its scorecard, without looking more globally at how the candidate undermines environemtal interests by undermining the party of conservation.

Joe Lieberman sells out his fellow democrats and gives cover for calling blatantly unreasonable Republican anti-environmental efforts "reasonable."

Pro-conservation forces have been playing defense. Wouldn't you like to play offense?

Joe Lieberman undercuts any and every effort Dems make at playing offense in suppport of a progressive, pro-environmentla agenda. Name one time he has not sold out his fellow democrats when any dared to forward a progressive agenda in the face of GOP resistance.

By narrowly focusing on your scorecard, and choosing to remain blind to the larger political environment, you are betraying your own cause.

Congratulations.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-14 06:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Agreed

Without taking a look at Ned Lamont, the LCV endorsed the sitting Senator who has been with them somewhere around 80% of the time. There's a 20% space for improvement there, but rather than seeking out a candidate who might fill that extra 20% gap, they went ahead.

Lieberman's been a good Senator for the environment, sure, but why is now the time for an endorsement? The answer is: Lieberman needed the endorsement now and not after the primary.

by Phoenix Rising 2006-03-14 06:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Agreed

I've been a member of the LCV for over 15 years, but I sent them an e-mail yesterday that this is my last year. They don't get it. Joe is undependable, and when the vote is critical, he does not deliver. My $35 membership is going to Ned's campaign instead.

by weinerdog43 2006-03-14 05:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

scorecard wankery

Scorecarding starts out silly and sometimes gets ridiculous, take LCV's 2004 presidential primary endorsement, to recap, what was the goal?

League of Conservation Voters President Deb Callahan said the replacement of President George W. Bush is her organization's top priority and this is the right time to get behind the Democrat best able to win.

OK, the top priority is to beat Bush, so let's pull out the LCV scorecard!!!

Callahan said Kerry's record was a "half step ahead'' of Lieberman's.

Kerry's lifetime LCV voting record was 96 percent while Lieberman's score was 93.

HOLY SHIT. One dude did 3 pts better than another dude. It couldn't be clearer. Let the scorecards win.

by blogswarm 2006-03-14 06:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: scorecard wankery

P.S. Since scorecards are everything, I would like to point everyone's attention to the Legislators Constipation Values scorecard. Senator Lieberman was scored to be full of crap 92.7% of the time, ensuring he won't be a dirty dozen target.

by blogswarm 2006-03-14 06:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

Yeah he's great for the environment. Just ask the Iraqis who are swimming in sewage, radioactive waste and general destruction. Or how about the radioactive waste created by US military in Afghanistan?

by editor25 2006-03-14 06:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

"Again, which would you rather have? drilling in ANWR or 30 years of anti-environmental rulings on the Supreme Court?"

Excellent point!

by Citizen80203 2006-03-14 07:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

Indeed, who would you properly handicap those two actions for an accurate scorecard?

by blogswarm 2006-03-14 07:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

But is he EFFECTIVE?

I don't care if his votes are in our favor. We are talking about Lieberman who does not hesitate to attack a fellow democrat for even the slightest of disagreements on Iraq. How come he has remained largely silent on Bush's awful environmental record? During the primary, he took potshots at Dean regarding Iraq. He took potshots at Michael Moore and likeminded leftwingers in the party. Yet such a man is not even a fraction as outspoken when it comes to attacking enemies of the environment. What good is a vote when it is not accompanied by efforts to persuade others to crossover and vote in larger numbers to make a bill successful?

by Pravin 2006-03-14 07:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Me thinks Scorecard is outdated concept

Your organization needs to get rid of outmoded concepts. Scorecard was fine when we had a majority and you were trying to maximize your agenda in that majority but right now with no majority you can't further your agenda only protect what you have gained in the past.

I think a Democratic majority is your priority not the inconsequential potential vote that loses to the Republican majority.

Please think big picture. We need a majority right now not a minority environmental vote

by KosTexasliberal 2006-03-14 07:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Me thinks Scorecard is outdated concept

I think you bring up an excellent point. The idea of a scorecard is to keep elected officials from straying out of camp. Now that the Dems are in the minority, the camp is controlled by the GOP, so there is no camp out of which they can stray.

It makes very little sense to try and hold a minority caucus together when the opposition won't even let your side read the bills on which you're voting. Hell, even if they do, they'll come up with some sort of procedural change that squelches debate. I'm seriously beginning to think the Dems on the Hill are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

The only goal should be recapturing the majority.

by Tod Westlake 2006-03-14 02:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

The League of Conservation Voters has proven itself to be as afflicted by all the ills which have rendered Beltway Democratic consultants ineffective over the years. Their scorecard has little, if anything to do, with issues within each Congressional district, in blatant violation of the principle that local issues matter in elections more than abstract, distant debates beloved by D.C. wonks. They raise and spend huge sums of money on lame television advertising and direct mail to worn out lists, while paying the usual fat cut to their lame consultants. Their political committee is composed of entrenched Big Green long-timers who haven't produced much in the way of solid results within their own organizations for the past decade, and, in some cases, have really blown golden opportunities because of their lousy political judgment and skills. We're still paying for some of their blunders out here in the West.

In general elections, the LCV doesn't get much done. Their reports on their success rates over the past 12 years are pretty deceiving when you start looking closely. But in a Democratic primary election, where they are preaching to the choir and don't have to think very hard about how to speak to the general electorate, they can make a difference.

The LCV endorsement of Lieberman at this point was probably demanded by him, and they coughed it up for a fellow Beltway buddy who produces the right scores on their artificial measuring stick, but not much else in the long run.

by DemOutWest 2006-03-14 07:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

Oh come on. That's ridiculous. I'm an LCV volunteer and I gotta say, they run some of the most professional, organized field campaigns we've got right now in the progressive world (they totally smoked ACT and MoveOn and the other pretenders during Kerry-Bush). And as far as the West goes, they spent a couple million on getting the two Salazars elected in CO, the only independent group to get involved in those races and a big reason why we finally have Dems in both seats right now. They won Maria Cantwell's senate seat in 2000, too (ask her and she'll agree). In 2004, a bad year for progressives, they won 7 out of 8 closely contested races, a record loads of groups (ahem, Kossacks) would love to crow about. They've got state level partners in most states and a bunch of them have won real races at the state level: The Montana LCV spent a ton and helped win Gov. Schweitzer's seat (ask him too), not to mention Janet Napolitano's in AZ, and the Colorado legislature, the Washington legislature, and on and on. Truthfully, they're some of the best we have.

The fact is that the environment is not a Democratic issue. LCV approaches it as they should: A non-partisan issue that happens, at least in the West, to benefit mostly Democrats. And they approach elections strategically, not wasting money on races they have no chance to affect. I wish the netroots could learn something from them.

The other truth is that not all national organizations are full of idiots or run by the DNC or DLC (which is kind of the same thing, I know). LCV is an example of one that really does think grassroots. It's just that they THINK it, not just FEEL it.

Rant over.

by ColoDem 2006-03-14 10:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

You're giving way too much credit to the League of Conservation Voters. I'm not criticizing the state-based organizations (whose accomplishments the nationals love to borrow as their own), but the rich, fat and swaggering national group. I've seen their swanky offices in DC and their handiwork here in NM and other Western states, and it's embarassing (good for the consultants, though).

The problem with the national LCV is they use a national scorecard detached from what's really going on in the districts they target. It's a product of their Beltway blinders and arrogance. As a result, they will put someone on a Dirty Dozen list because it fits some grandiose national strategy, then be at a loss to explain to voters in the targeted district what's so evil about their member in Congress.

The LCV is the model of what's wrong with Big Green institutional environmentalism (a topic worthy of its own blog). For all the millions they spend, if they would reform themselves to be first, effective, regardless of the pain incurred in the transformation, they could get a lot more done. But they are too in love with themselves and their comfortable clique to undertake that sort of self-surgery.

As for their track record, take a very careful look at their Dirty Dozen results over the past ten years and tell me they're not guilty of some Enron style accounting to puff up their effectiveness.

I wish LCV luck. But I'm tired of the Beltway enviro fat cats, just like I tired of the Bob Shrums and others of that ilk.

by DemOutWest 2006-03-14 11:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

I respect the LCV's decision, but...

We have bigger fish to fry. I'm glad to hear that Lieberman is good on environmental issues. I'm glad there's a silver lining to this dark cloud of Democratic weakness.

This primary is not about the environment, it's about a whole host of other Democratic values that Lamont is willing to fight for and Lieberman is not.

In fact, if Lamont wins, I will even write Senator Lieberman a letter thanking him for his many years of service to the environment. Until then, I'll be doing all I have power to do to make sure he is replaced with a Democrat who will serve all the people Lieberman has let down.

Thanks to the LCV. It takes balls to walk into the Lion's den and tell him you respectfully disagree.

P.S. Al Weed

by msnook 2006-03-14 09:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

They are asking the wrong question

The question isn't, "Has he voted with us in the past?" The question is, "Who would be with us more, Lieberman or Lamont?"

by Geotpf 2006-03-14 09:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Sen. Lieberman really cares about the environment

The LCV endoresement says it all. Lieberman is a leader on environmental issues in the senate. He cares about these issues and works hard to support strong environmental laws.

Lamont is a waist of time. There are so many democrats that deserve to lose if this is about percentages of support on a scorecard for the liberal position.

Lieberman will be able to do this with every major democratc interest group. Lamont is a waist of time. Lieberman is a proud democrat.

by optimist 2006-03-14 09:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

This is an outrage. The LCV endorsment of Lieverman proves that they are outdated and ineffective as an organization (they would have been fine if they had endorsed Lamont).

The problem with the LCV, with it's scorecards and tracking of all the times a member of congress has voted their preferred way, and their willingness to get behind specific environmental issues is that misses the BIG picture, the overriding issue is that it doesen't matter how lieberman actually votes, what matters is that lieberman is an ugly old man, who is mean & we saw him sitting with the republicans at lunch. Also he smells & his ties are atrocious.

Did I say it doesen't matter how he votes? I was mistaken, okay you say lieberman is a friend of the environment because he voted pro environment so many times on such & such issues and blah blah blah, but what about the time he voted for (blank) huh? doesen't that one vote cancel out his entire record and put him at zero.

I understand you beltway cocktail party DLC triangulator washington kelly ckarkson types have procedure and all "we support those who support us" etc, but I fail to see why you didn't consider endorsing a primary opponent who's never held office, cast any votes or said much of anyhting on the environemnt? afterall, there's the possiuble chance that he could be environmentally friendly, but you corrupt vichy Democrats at the LCV don't consider that do you.

The problem with you big greens endorsing lieberman shows that you don't care about environmental issues and you are reallt corrupt back stabbers who spit on babies & don't call their mothers on her birthday.

Now don't you wish you had just endorsed Ned Lamont?

by Epitome22 2006-03-14 01:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters Endorsed

Tony,

Thank you for sharing your rationale with this hostile crowd. I appreciate the dialog although I am, like many here, fervently anti-Lieberman. I hope the reaction you've had doesn't discourage you from participating in future dialogs.

Peace,
--Carl

by carlmanaster 2006-03-14 03:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why the League of Conservation Voters

I'm not a Liberman fan either, but the LCV is not a part of the Democratic Party for crying out loud. They care about the environment and are working toward that goal. Give the devil it's due--it's clear Liberman is quite pro-environment!

by saurabhgupta 2006-03-14 04:26PM | 0 recs