I take offense at that, I am somewhat conservative and I happen to love trees.
I am VERY conservative about some issues, and I like trees more than I like most people. I wish I lived in a state that wasn't trying to tear down every tree and pave over the ground they stood upon (Paramus, NJ, is a good example of what happens when you make an entire town one continuous parking lot. Yuck).
But, I still think the logo isn't all that great, either.
I think it's funny. It's not a bad logo, and I think it does represent a friendlier and more earth conscience than the original logo. And not to begin a flame war, but don't conservatives generally represent the group think that change is not good? so, what else would you expect? of course they are fearful of change to their logo.
The more and more I look at it, the less I like it. I feel as though they picked a fairly rigid font, whereas, the tree seems a little whimsical with the scribble; I just don't think it melds together very well.
Then again, perhaps the contrast is a good thing?
EDIT: As far as looking like a piece of broccli... unless someone just ate a piece of broccli, I highly doubt that's the first thing they think when they see it.
It might also be useful to consider that much of what PrintDriver posted boils down to the fact that many spot colors can't be produced in CMYK; the very reason they exist as spot colors in the first...
It appears they do not like the name Sahara and have decided to go with Pardis............ Which in my opinion is, excuse the foul language, fucking dumb. Anyways I did a very early draft logo of this...