Two Sides to Every Candidate
Posted on April 1, 2008 | By Matthew Burns | 3 Comments
Okay, I know the fastest way to piss people off is to talk about religion or politics. However, as they say, it’s better to be pissed off than pissed on, so just bear with me during my political rant.
Let me preface this post with saying that I’m not yet sure who I am supporting for president. My issue is not race, religion or gender (as the mainstream media would have you believe), in fact, the main issue for me in choosing a President is which one will most likely promote legislation that will end MTR. It seems whomever I start to lean toward they do, or say, something stupid which makes me rethink my decision.
I really liked John Edwards but we all know where that went.
Hillary says there’s got to be a middle ground between the environmental costs of MTR and the economic benefits derived thereof. She promotes green energy, (i.e. solar panels in the Great Basin, Wind Farms in TX and on the coast, Hydrogen fuel cells) but she also says Clean Coal is green. There’s nothing clean about coal, and there is no middle ground between the environment and economics of MTR.
McCain says he is against MTR and “will work to end the destruction of the mountains”. But he is for continuing the war, which I see as counterproductive to ending MTR. Also, he introduced a bill in 2005 to depopulate the Black Mesa region in the American southwest so the coal strip mine there could expand. In my mind, I wonder if he would try a similar bill for the coalfields of Appalachia, after all, it could be twisted to sound like it would be in the national interest to do so.
Obama says he will protect America’s waterways, and states that the EPA under his administration will fully enforce the Clean Water Act. Earlier in his campaign he was against MTR but has since backslid and now promotes Clean Coal Technology. I’m still haunted by his remarks “Miners in West Virginia need work”. Also, Obama introduced the “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007″ to the Senate. We all know that Coal to liquids is code for more MTR. Promoting Clean Coal Technology and Coal-to-liquids seems to me to the exact opposite of ending MTR. Sounds like he is trying to play both sides of the fence here. Of course, they all are!
So who do I vote for? Who best represents my interests?
It seems to me that the only question left to ask is “Can I vote for none of the above?”.
Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger values to the nation’s character and health than they will to its pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit that the latter are the only values that interest us. – Aldo Leopold
Comments
3 Responses to “Two Sides to Every Candidate”
Leave a Reply
Search This Site
Archives
You Can Help…
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Featured Posts
Popular Posts
Endmtr.com Forum
- Mountaintop removal in Tennessee December 18, 2011
- Michigan coal-fired plants to close; wind and air to step up December 17, 2011
- Energy Company Abandons Plan For Georgia Coal Plant December 17, 2011
- GOP’s Coal Poison Pill Risks White House Veto Of Payroll Tax Cut Bill December 17, 2011
- New study documents cumulative impact of mountaintop mining December 12, 2011
The Latest Google News – MTR & Climate Change
- The Greedy Bastards Antidote to Rigged Energy - Huffington Post - 07 Feb 12
- INFLUENCE GAME: Big donors and what they want - Ventura County Star - 06 Feb 12
- INFLUENCE GAME: Big donors and what they want - Atlanta Journal Constitution - 03 Feb 12
- INFLUENCE GAME: Big donors and what they want - Fox News - 03 Feb 12
- If We Can Stop the Keystone Pipeline, We Can Stop Mountaintop Removal. Right? - Huffington Post - 02 Feb 12
Information / Hotline
Contributing Authors – Past & Present
Gallery
EPA
Admin
Visitors Online
- 03 visitor(s) online
- powered by WassUp
April 1st, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Seems to me that they will each say whatever they have to in order to be elected. That message will change depending on where they are at and which way the wind is blowing. I want to see *real* plans for ending MTR, not just a few words thrown here and there. There really is no in-between here. Which Side Are You On? *that* is the question for all of the candidates. Are you for sustainable communities, healthy w/mountaintops; or for environmental devastation and obliteration of coalfield communities.
April 1st, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Excellent post- I heard something a while back – a person was talking about the elections and said something to the effect that they were a one issue voter this election – same here. To be honest for me the choice is none of the above. I hear good things and then almost in the same breath I hear contradictory statements. Any mention of support for clean coal technology by any candidate disqualifies them in my book. That is a prime example of simply telling the people what they want to hear regardless of the actual facts. The sad part is – people believe it.
April 2nd, 2008 @ 11:37 am
i’m with you…. none of them are good choices to me. i’m a ron paul girl, but we all know the probability of him getting elected. but he has stated that no person has the right to do something on their property that pollutes their neighbors property…. and if they do, they should be prosecuted in court.