Why are environmental groups pissing away money on love letters to Norm?

[Minnesota Raindog]

Before the Senate vote, I resisted the countless pleas for money from organizations fighting to preserve the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. I'm glad I did. It would have just gone to pay for the full-page ads run in the local papers by several of them "thanking" Norm Coleman for voting against the proposal.

What is wrong with these people? What other things could the thousands of dollars pissed away on those ads have been spent on? What did they buy with that money? I thought these folks were supposed to be sophisticated lobbyists. Evidently not, since they believe the party line about how Norm voted "green" on this issue, and kept his promise to vote to protect ANWAR. AND they're willing to spend thousands perpetuating this balderdash.

Does anyone believe for a minute that if Norm's vote would have been a tie-breaker, that he would have voted against the administration? Of course not! They counted the votes and determined it was safe for him to vote against it. This vote-counting is done all the time on both sides of the aisle. If Norm's vote truly was reflective of his commitment to protect ANWAR, why did he not announce how he was going to vote until the vote was nearly upon us, instead of forcing organizations to waste time motivating the troops to call him? And why did he not publicly try to convince his colleagues to reject the proposal?

There was no commitment to his campaign promise there. And certainly nothing green about Norm's vote. In fact, the only thing green about Norm Coleman is the color of his chameleon skin.

I'll be adjusting my environmental giving in the next year to groups that really need it, rather than to groups that want to cuddle up to Norm Coleman.

[Viking12]

1. The issue is not yet dead...we may still need Coleman

Given the House's rejection of the ANWR provisions in the budget bill, the issue is far from settled. Smilin' Norm's limited influence may still be needed to head this off. I'd say the groups are making a wise move strategically to curry favor w/ Norm on this issue.

on edit: spelling

[dpbrown]

2. It highlights his pledge

And reminds him that we will hold his feet to the fire on this, and that he will thrive or decline based on this issue.

[Minnesota Raindog]

4. It it was a reminder to Norm, a personal letter would suffice

37 cents is a lot cheaper than the thousands they blew on those ads. How many $50 individual contributions to their causes did it take to pay for those ads? This was not a wise expenditure of scarce funds in the environmental community. It was a dumb move. The only people who benefited from this were the newspapers' ad departments.

[dpbrown]

6. Respectfully, a letter does nothing

Politicians react to public opinion. They are for the most part not proactive. Nor do they, when in the opposition, care in the least for a letter from a concerned citizen. But when a number of groups band together and publically tie a Senator to his pledge in a full-page ad, it reminds people for whom this is likely not an issue what Coleman is supposed to stand for, and what it will look like if he lies about it in the future. While I think that it would be great if every dollar raised could go to saving some wild thing, I don't agree that this was an ill-advised expenditure.

[Demrock6]

3. Mark Kennedy...

was one of the 25 "moderate" republicans that wanted to drop ANWR. Funny how Coleman, and Kennedy are starting to act like Democrats on this issue. I bet it has nothing to do with 2006 sneaking up?

[CatholicEdHead]

5. Before this Kennedy bragged about a 98% voting record with W