I should think that greenies should also consider the "Environment" in Iraq. Remember that Lieberman is no longer the Dem candidate in CT because of his support of the war. What do you think the war and rampant imperialism is doing to the environment around the world.

Of course, its not good to have to trust only one political party.  As an African American, I think I know this better than most.  But if only one party, in a two-party system, respects you and cares about your issues what are you going to do?

I think environmentalists have got to admit to themselves, that the environment doesn't exist in a vacuum.  

I used to respect Senator Lieberman, but he's been making noises like he believes in the Republican mantra about the war and his staff doesn't seem to be sure he's really going to caucus with the Democrats as he said.

So, if I were able to vote in Connecticut, I'd be voting for Lamont.  While he doesn't have an environmental record, at least not one as long as Senator Lieberman's, he does have real integrity and I trust him.

I don't trust Joe Lieberman and I don't believe he'll be any better on this issue than he's been on others.

When addressing the choices that environmental organizations and environmentally-concerned voters have, the very crux of the problem IS the stranglehold of the two-party system and the $$ that holds it hostage.

Carl Pope himself exemplifies this frustrating situation when he argued in the Lincoln Chafee article that the club doesn't stick to just one party, that it doesn't matter whether the candidate was "a D or an R."
He never even considers if the candidate is an "I" or a "G."

Lieberman's run as an independent, albeit a very exceptional and well-funded independent, might be what is needed to shake up the establishment, expand our vision beyond tennis game politics and open up our system to other parties.  It might also prove a cause for reconsidering what issues are encompassed under the environmental umbrella and whether we can consider a pro-war candidate an environmental hero when war is the ultimate environmental disaster.

I agree that we need either more than two parties or no parties at all. The latter would be the choice of preference.

If I was setting up a election system it would be based on education qualifications (graduate from a four year accredited university or higher), age range between 40 and 60 years, voluntary with yearly pay equal to the average yearly pay over the last three years of working life prior to election, married with children, no criminal record, etc.

Positions would be for one 5 year term for congressmen and president.

People who wanted to serve their country in this capacity and met the above qualifications would have their name put into a lottery pool. 5 names would be pulled from the lottery pool and these five would debate publicly and the people would vote for one of the five.

This would eliminate the need for parties. It would eliminate money and the corrupting influence it has from politics. The televised debates would be carried by all stations as a public service and necessary to obtain the required broadcasting license.

Imagine a government of the people, by the people, and for the people...

Unfortunately, it'll most likely never happen! Corruption is too deep and those in power like the system the way it is.

It is also unfortunate that Lieberman is one of the 'evil' ones. Supports anything Israel does unconditionaly. He seems to support the Zionist's goals of eliminating any threat, real or imagined, to Israel. Yep, he would be all for attacking Iran. Although he's not a 'natural' warmonger, he takes a mothers interest in his infant Israel's safety. This puts him out of touch with most Americans I imagine. I think and hope that most of us want people in power who will look at situations with an open and honest mind, evaluate based on the evidence, and then determine the best thing to do. I don't think he can do that on cricial areas like when to go to war and when not to. Lieberman seems to be a Republican, in Democrat clothing, running as an independent. The worst of all possible candidates imo!

   Lieberman gets most of his support from Republicans and the more conservative Democrats.  Lamont is the more traditional Democratic candidate at this point.

   Amaliada raises the important point of whether we can trust Lieberman to not defect and go all the way to the Republican party.  After all, who you causcus with matters in terms of who becomes the institutional leadership.

   Do environmentalists consider war an environmental issue?  Clearly a large number do not.  It is sad that being against violence and killing is seen as a "left wing issue".  

   I don't actually think that Lamont is much different from Lieberman on issues related to the Middle East, except Iraq.

   The key reason to vote for Lamont is to send a strong anti-war message to Washington and the nation.  If you do not wish to do this, then you can look at their other positions.  So far, this is the main one that has been highlighted.

   Is the war an environmental issue?

patrick

I want to agree with Dog Papa about war being not so friendly to the global environment. War is not very Green, is it? Think about it for a minute. The making of weapons, the shipping of materiel and soldiers,the driving around in vehicles that get 47 feet per gallon, I suspect there isn't any admiral or general assigned the task of environmental risk assessment. Bombs hurt not only people but the ground, the water, especially those nasty and infrequently discussed DU bombs. Definitely not enviro-friendly critters. Then we have this disastrous war which is partly about oil, oil which we know in just about every way imaginable is not kind to the air, water, our bodies, things that grow, birds that fly (I'm thinking of oil spills). You all know this. But the Iraq war is predicated on the assumption that we must continue our lunatic dependence on oil. If Lieberman supports the war ergo he supports continuing to ignore global warming,and in fact despite his "record" is not really a friend to the globe. He's gotta go.

This may be true but...........go down to many Christian churches and you will see that they feel that it is their responsibility to protect Isreal.......??? go figure. They say it is a christian duty.

I think that the Sierra Club is quite right to support people, rather than parties. The Democratic Party already takes our support too much for granted, and they have, at times, betrayed our trust.  (Remember NAFTA, and salvage logging?)  Rather than resign ourselves to a two-party system, and "the lesser of two evils", we should be working to level the playing field for independent and third party canidates, so that the major parties have to work at earning our support.
    That said, I strongly agree with those who say that war is an environmental issue.  We have trashed and polluted Iraq, and our continuing involvement there is costing us money and resources that could be used to clean up pollution at home, and maintain our national parks.  The recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was an environmental disaster, as well as a humanitarian tragedy.  The Navy's sonar experiments are a serious threat to whales, and other creatures of the deep. Let's face it, voting green means voting for peace.