Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Pete McCloskey Scores CLCV Endorsement

Matt Stoller of MyDD is reporting that the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Pete McCloskey.  I don’t see a link on MyDD, and I cannot find the press release on either Pete McCloskey’s website or the website of the League of Conservation Voters, although I have found a notation on the California League of Conservation Voters website that they’ve endorsed McCloskey for the GOP primary.  I’m a little unclear what the relation is between LCV and CLCV and whether an endorsement by one is tantamount to an endorsement by both.        

In any event here’s the part of the press release Stoller quotes:

Susan Smartt, CLCV Executive Director: "Among Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, Pete McCloskey's lifetime devotion to protecting our quality of life and promoting conservation is virtually unparalleled."

During his 15 years in Congress, Mr. McCloskey helped author many of the nation's most important environmental and conservation laws that benefited California and the nation as a whole. He earned an LCV lifetime score of 70 percent in its National Environmental Scorecard. If elected, Mr. McCloskey will be a reliable advocate for legislation that protects our resources, safeguards our public health and reduces our dependence on oil.

Also, while I was nosing around McCloskey’s website I found this event announcement:

Friday May 19, 2006, 7:00pm Come and Discuss Issues of the Day With Congressman Pete Stark and Former Congressman Pete McCloskey Verona at Hacienda5699 Belleza Drive[Intersection of W. Los Positas & Stoneridge]Pleasanton, CA

Anyone else think this is weird?


Anonymous Rocky Balboa said...

Yo Matt.

Rocky here. You and Nick are OK in my book cuz youse use yer real names. Question - are you in duh Inner Circle wid me and duh rest of duh guys here? (Except I still don't know if Delta is a guy or a goil.)

Rocky dont know what to make of dis McClosky guy. Hes a bit of a strange boid, if ya asks me. Whats he doin gittin all dem union endorsements anyways? Now hes even gittin em from duh tree-huggers too? Dis don't make no sense to Rocky. No doubt ButtaWipeO has some opinion on dis, but you don't learn nuttin factual-like from shit-throwing SORE LOSERS like him.

Whose dis guy Stark? Is he Dem or Repug? Rocky dunno if dis is weird or not, so he gonna sit back and listen. Cuz when you don't know shit, dat's what you do - you listen and loin.

Ya hear dat Rickey ButtaWipeO? Unlike you, when I don't know sumtin I keep my trap shut. Unlike you, who feels all qualified as an ineffectual to speak out on anyting, even when you start out by saying you don't know shit about duh subject. Woo woo woo.

Rocky out.

1:45 PM, May 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. 2% of a buck again (and I'll make this brief, I have work to do)

1) This is REAL simple to understand, since Rule #1 in politics is "if you want to be effective, you've got to get elected", and

2) CLCV (which is somewhat distinct from LCV) did NOT endorse McNerney in 2004 since they did NOT think he had a chance, and needed to save their credibility chits for the battles that mattered to them -- that they DID endorse McCloskey just now means they MUST think McCloskey's got a chance (and I personally have him rated at 45% odds right now -- see an earlier post today)

3) That Stark has not chosen to follow Miller, Lofgren, et. al. and endorse Filson hints to me that he's not exactly on the Pelosi/Tauscher/Emanuel bandwagon on this one, so his being next door to CA-11, it strikes me as NOT odd that he would want to aid in the removal of Pombo by someone he also thinks stands the best chance (and he's been around for quite a while, so I'd listen to him if I were you), after all,

4) Would you rather support a "liberal Republican" who CAN beat Pombo, or a "moderate Democrat" who CAN'T? As they say in the NFL... make the call.

$.02 out.

2:47 PM, May 10, 2006  
Anonymous Rocky Balboa said...

Yo $.02.

Rocky here. Its good to here from ya, and tanks for duh computer trick. I ain't gonna try it out til later thou.

Duh ting I like about you is you make Rocky tink. What you seems to be saying, if I can cut it to its essence, is dat duh treehuggers and dis Stark guy (whose a Dem) are tinking McClosky's got more than a Sno-cones chance in hell to beat Pombo. Rocky don't know about dat, but as long as he keeps the Repugs fighting amongst demselves I tink its a good ting cuz maybe all the citizens won't notice we Dems gotta war goin on over here as well. Tanks to Rickey ButtaWipeO over dere in his yellow roost stirrin up duh pot, da punk. If ya know what I mean.

Too bad about havin to woik Mr $.02. Rocky sorta retired now - he gotta nice prize last time he kicked Apollo's butt. I'm now livin off my loyalties. I'm tinkin more and more about becoming a blogger.

Yer alright Mr $.02. Fer a cheapskate.
Rocky out.

3:58 PM, May 10, 2006  
Blogger Jason said...

A few points of clarification, written from my point of view as a private citizen, not as an employee of CLCV (which I am).

LCV and CLCV are in fact distinct organizations. Essentially, they are "sister organizations" that have similar missions at different levels. CLCV focuses on electing candidates at the state level who will support laws to protect California's environment. LCV tends to take the lead on Congressional races, though CLCV makes Congressional endorsements as well.

CLCV's main criteria for any endorsement, whether for the primary or for the general election, are generally twofold: viability and how good the candidate will be on environmental issues. When a candidate has previous governmental experience, their record is taken into account.

Anonymous wrote: "CLCV... did NOT endorse McNerney in 2004 since they did NOT think he had a chance, and needed to save their credibility chits for the battles that mattered to them -- that they DID endorse McCloskey just now means they MUST think McCloskey's got a chance...." To an extent that is accurate, with a few caveats.

It wasn't that beating Pombo wasn't important to CLCV in 2004. It was just that CLCV judged it as impossible. 2006 is another ballgame altogether.

The fact that the McCloskey endorsement is in a Republican primary -- where CLCV doesn't usually play -- is significant. CLCV may or may not feel Pombo is especially vulnerable this year and therefore McCloskey "has a chance" -- but the relative merits of the candidates, the high profile of the race, and the fact that CLCV really loses nothing by endorsing McCloskey must be taken into account. The simple facts are that McCloskey is very good on the environment, especially for a Republican (he's better even than some sitting Democrats), and Pombo is extremely bad on the environment, even for a Republican. Still, CLCV wouldn't have endorsed McCloskey if he hadn't shown some plan for raising money and winning, so the assertion that he "has a chance" is essentially accurate.

However, in 2004, CLCV declined to make an endorsement in the general election. The fact that CLCV made an endorsement in the primary this year indicates a potential willingness to do so in the general. CLCV will, of course, not do so until after the primary.

If Pombo wins the Republican primary, you can probably guess what CLCV will do, no matter who wins the Democratic primary. If McCloskey wins it, which would be a surprising but happy outcome for those of us who oppose Pombo, McCloskey and the Democratic winner would participate in the LCV and the CLCV endorsement processes. The potential outcome of those endorsement processes is totally unclear at present, and the prerogative of the respective boards of those organizations.

Hope that sheds some light on the subject.

5:31 PM, May 24, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home