This morning, I received a copy of a press release that accompanied the League of Conservation Voters "2008 Presidential Primaries Voter Guide." I found the announcement both disappointing and filled with opportunity. It motivated me to respond.
Dear Mr. Dugan:
I noted with pleasure the following statement in your Voter's Guide Press Release.
"No matter who is nominated by each political party, LCV plans to work to elect the candidate best qualified to take on the issue of global warming as president," Karpinski said. "A comprehensive plan for confronting this problem is good for jobs, good for the economy, good for national security, good for the consumer and good for the planet.You are making a commitment to support the candidate "best qualified" to take on global warming, looking at "each political party." I am interpreting that to mean that you wold support a Green Party candidate if they had the best plan to address global warming. There are some advantages to your doing so.
- A Green Party Candidate would owe no loyalty to any corporate interest because they would not have taken corporate donations. This would give them much greater freedom of action.
- Supporting a Green Party Candidate would signal to both of the corporate parties that neither can consider the League of Conservation Voters endorsement an automatic right, a viewpoint that I have heard from some local Democratic Party candidates.
If we are going to ever see the changes in policy that we require, we need a shock to the political system. For the League of Conservation voters to give equal coverage to the Green Party candidates, or even to withhold endorsement from all candidates, might just be the shock that is required.
CoChair, EcoAction Committee