Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

GOP Challengers Target Democrats' 'War on Coal'

In coal-country, Republicans turn election into vote on Obama policies

By Harry Kimball,  Newser Staff

Posted Feb 15, 2010 12:39 PM CST
Email

(Newser) – Republicans are latching on to the idea of a Democrat-led “war on coal,” hoping to woo anxious residents of coal-country states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio by presenting their rivals as hostile to the industry—and it's working, and could lead to the Election Day demise of some Democratic House incumbents. Dems deny the war exists, and most have good records when it comes to the industry; some even voted against cap-and-trade legislation. But that hasn’t blunted the power of the rhetoric.

Two West Virginia races are representative of the battle. One challenger, looking to go up against longtime Rep. Nick Rahall, put it bluntly. “If you’re against me, you’re voting against your job and against mining coal,” he tells Politico. A Democratic official complains that the incumbents actually protect the industry, advocating coal to fellow party members "who may not have warm and fuzzy feelings" about it, but the opposition isn’t listening. A hopeful challenger in another race says the issue plays now because Republicans can also run against “Obama and his very liberal, very aggressive social agenda.”

A mountaintop removal mining site is seen at Kayford Mountain, W.Va.
A mountaintop removal mining site is seen at Kayford Mountain, W.Va.   (AP Photo)
Pro-coal supporters in Charleston, W.Va.
Pro-coal supporters in Charleston, W.Va.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Our part of the world and way of life is threatened by liberal Democrats in Washington. - Elliott “Spike” Maynard, West Virginia Republican challenger

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
6%
2%
41%
31%
6%
14%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 47 comments
LibertyAtStake
Feb 16, 2010 12:34 PM CST
@JonmarkP: You state "There is more energy available in solar and wind than we'll need for hundreds of years-it's just a matter of capturing it." Then why hasn't it become commercially viable after approx. 30 years of subsidies through DOE? Yes, the potential is unlimited. The economics remain untenable for the foreseeable future. http://libertyatstake.blogspot.../
blues_junky
Feb 16, 2010 4:30 AM CST
What was it Nancy Pelosi said, Riff? "Thank God we have natural gas, so we don't have to burn fossil fuels!"
blues_junky
Feb 16, 2010 4:19 AM CST
Spuds & Brutal, I agree 100% with nukes. But the problem I've read is that they're not efficient when you need to ramp up for peak demand.....you use up too much steam and it effects the base-load capabilities. Probably could get around that by supplementing with nat. gas for peak-load, and nuke for base-load.

 
cap and trade • Kentucky • Ohio • House of Representatives • coal mining • West Virginia • Republican candidate • Democratic Party • energy policy • Obama administration • midterm elections • coal-country • war on coal • Nick Rahall

More Newser Stories

Dems Torn: Too Much Change, or Not Enough?
NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne