WTF happened to a 'new direction'?

Obama condemns mining reform package as too hard on the mining industry 18

Barack whatever

Barack Obama is ticking me off. First he opportunistically attacks Clinton for not being enthusiastic enough in her support for corn ethanol -- which he knows perfectly well is an environmental dead end.

Then ... this:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he does not support mining reform legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives and would work to find a compromise that is more friendly to the mining industry.

"The legislation that has been proposed places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs (in rural Nevada) given the difficulties the industry is already facing in maintaining its operations," Obama said during a conference call with Nevada reporters discussing his platform for rural Nevada.

For those who don't know, the reform in question, sponsored by Nick Rahall (D-W.V.), would update the notorious Mining Law of 1872, which allows mining companies to pay little to no royalties to mine on public land.

Yeah, that's the "significant burden on the mining industry" Obama's lamenting -- forcing them to pay royalties for use of public land like everyone else.

I get that candidates have to pander, but this is just egregious.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. TheGreenMiles Posted 2:41 am
    08 Nov 2007

    WeirdApparently Barack Obama has decided that to win the Democratic party nomination, you have to appeal to the mining industry AND environmentalists.  So he supports 80% by 2050 AND liquified coal.  And Clinton's the panderer???

    Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

    Permalink

  2. GreenNPR Posted 3:06 am
    08 Nov 2007

    Time for a third partyThis is what I've been telling people. This year is the time to vote Green Party. The only party that does not accept corporate donations. The only party with that recognizes global warming as the greatest threat to mankind. And the only party that has the most comprehensive plan for a sustainable farm-environmental-enery policy.

    Permalink

  3. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 3:24 am
    08 Nov 2007

    Great idea, GreenNPR,after all, what could go wrong?

    grist.org

    Permalink

  4. odograph Posted 3:35 am
    08 Nov 2007

    in a parlementary systemI might vote green, but in a 2-party system, you are only left with the choice that (1) if the 2-party outcome looks like the lessor of two evils, then (2) maybe someone somewhere will notice which 3rd parties got some votes, and it will be worth a protest.

    Permalink

  5. odograph Posted 3:37 am
    08 Nov 2007

    if it's not obviousThe Democratic candidate knows that (s)he owns every vote here.
    The same kind of thing is happening on the other side, as the Republican candidate knows that he owns every evangelical vote.

    Permalink

  6. justlou Posted 3:43 am
    08 Nov 2007

    Middle of the Road Visionary?If you think you can live with a compromiser then Obama may be the guy.  But I've about up on discovering a real visionary among any presidential candidates.  The system just does not select for vision, at least at the national level.
    For me the new luster on Obama started wearing off when I first heard him talking up coal to liquid.  I wish I could have more hope, but I think a lot of policy, no matter who the candidate is, will be limited by the rigid mechanics of keeping the gears meshed and turning in this technocratic beast. Our destiny may be set.  
     

    Permalink

  7. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:53 am
    08 Nov 2007

    Meanwhile...on Wall Street

    First Solar is breaking all records:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/first-solar-net-inc ...
    A TEN TIMES increase in revenue.
    Business -- without help from government -- is spreading renewables around the globe.

    John Bailo


    Sutext:

    Permalink

  8. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 6:02 am
    08 Nov 2007

    GreenNPRThat was dripping sarcasm in Dave's remark, in case you missed it.
    I'm with Odo and justlou. Look what happened to the last honest president we had, and our destiny may well be sealed by this politician selection process.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  9. Tom Philpott's avatar

    Tom Philpott Posted 7:04 am
    08 Nov 2007

    Odo,"The Democratic candidate knows that (s)he owns every vote here.
    The same kind of thing is happening on the other side, as the Republican candidate knows that he owns every evangelical vote."
    I don't know about that. Rudy G's been all but speaking in tongues lately. I think the difference is that the evangelicals don't offend corporate interests, while enviros (sometimes) do.  

    Victual Reality

    Permalink

  10. odograph Posted 7:29 am
    08 Nov 2007

    TomI knew I was drawing a bit of a caricature, but not totally.  I might not be the isolated moderate that I sometimes imagine myself to be ..
    But.  The main reason I respond is to note that last night on NPR a Republican spinner listing the reason people can't vote for Democrats.  It's because they listen to "special interests" ... a list .. blah ... blah .. "trial lawyers, environmentalists."
    At that point I perk up and shake my head.  To his side, environmentalists are still bogey men.  They are a scary thing to lock in that rightist party vote.

    Permalink

  11. GreenNPR Posted 11:29 am
    08 Nov 2007

    Well..."The Democratic candidate knows that (s)he owns every vote here.
    The same kind of thing is happening on the other side, as the Republican candidate knows that he owns every evangelical vote."
    That's the kind of hubris thinking that leads to candidates taking certain parts of the electorate for granted. No candidate or party owns or is entitled to anyone's vote! It's simply ridicuouls to say that the Democrats are entitled to all Black votes or environmentalist votes.
    What are Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionists suppose to do? Tell us we can't participate in the democratic process?
    I apologize for sorta derailing the thread though.
    Obama is just bound to too many industries. Illinois is a big coal state so Obama doesn't want to offend the Big coal.

    Permalink

  12. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 12:51 pm
    08 Nov 2007

    Another zinger from Obama......this time he's accusing Hillary of being too "sixties", which is code for, well, stuff like, as that radical Tom Brokaw pointed out on Keith Olbermann's show, the civil rights movement, not to mention things like, gee, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and...oh yeah, the birth of the environmental, feminist, gay, etc. movements.  So I guess he's going to try to go to the right of Hillary, which is not a new direction, it's a right-wing direction.

    Permalink

  13. marshall Posted 4:30 am
    09 Nov 2007

    early statesThe problem here is where the primaries are taking place.  Iowa is a big, big corn-based ethanol producer.  Nevada is a big mining state; the largest domestic source of gold, among other minerals.  Those industries provide a lot of jobs in the state, and have a lot of influence in the media.  The canidates, including Obama, know that if they are painted in Iowa as anti-ethanol or in Nevada as anti-mining, it will hurt them politically.  Obama is not as well known in Nevada; he can't afford to have many voters learn of him first as "anti-mining." In a national race, they could easily afford to upset these interests, but in a close race in these small states, they can't.  This is the problem with having our nomination battles essentially fought in four small states that in no way represent the nation.

    Permalink

  14. John former Marine Posted 6:11 am
    09 Nov 2007

    please don't vote for Obama...He's going to do absolutely nothing to change things.  Nor is Hillary.  
    In fact, if we absolutely have to elect a Democrat, let's go with Kucinich.  I think at least with him we could get rid of the electoral college so we wouldn't have to choose between Democrat and Republican.  We'd have some real choices.

    Permalink

  15. GreenMom Posted 2:51 pm
    09 Nov 2007

    Hmm....According to my elementary schooler, the kids overwhelmingly like Obama.
    According to his 22 year-old babysitter, the grown-up kids do too.
    Given the all-powerful zeitgeist, I think we'd best focus on changing the positions taken by the frontrunners, rather than tilting at windmills by touting Kucinich -- or, God forbid, a third party that could again tip the balance (lest we forget, in 2000 Nader got 90,000 votes in Florida...).
    I like Kucinich as much as anyone, but honestly, the country's not going to elect a guy who looks like an elf and says he's seen UFOs.
    Please let's keep it real.  This election is too important.

    Permalink

  16. mat Posted 1:20 am
    12 Nov 2007

    oh, obama, say it ain't so
    i really liked this guy early on. i still do because of his bright mind and well trained intellect, BUT....
    sadly,  can't see voting for him now since he supports the whole liquid coal idea and a couple other faux pas(s) lately. i feel stuck with no choice.

    i threw away my vote on Ralph Nader last time - should have voted for Gore, but he was SOOO "Ken doll" then.....

    Permalink

  17. Bob Ernst Posted 6:49 am
    12 Nov 2007

    Obama and the mining industry.Reading the comments about Obama's stance on the proposed mining legislation made me wonder how many people have actually read the 1872 law and amendments AND understand the very real risks and uncertainties that characterize hard rock mining. As a committed environmentalist I support reforming the 1872 law but have to give Obama credit for taking what I interpret to be a reflective position rather than one that is "politically correct" from a green point of view but basically knee-jerk.

    Permalink

  18. farmboy27 Posted 5:25 am
    17 Nov 2007

    Obama and greensI'd agree.  Obama isn't ever going to be the greens' candidate, but he will be the green candidate in the general election. Like everyone, I hope he drops the coal and ethanol nonsense -- but at least it's understandable.  Still, it seems that

    a. he's open about his real views

    b. he's thought about the issues

    and

    c. he'd consider changing his mind.

    He needs stronger green voices on his staff, especially since he seems to really listen to people .  Is there really another viable Democratic candidate?  The fact that Obama is a listener frustrates those of us who understand green issues, since lots of the people he listens to don't.  The trick is to get our voices to be heard in his entourage.
         

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement