(W.Va.) Where Kerry Is Trying to Avoid Gore's Pitfalls

[kskiska]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - This state's Democratic roots run as deep as its coal mines. Retirees still speak reverently about the New Deal. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two to one. And since 1928, only four Republicans have won its electoral votes. Three were incumbents riding national landslides.

The fourth was George W. Bush. But was his upset victory over Vice President Al Gore here an aberration, as Democrats contend, or the start of a new era, as Republican contend? The answer may depend on voters like Roy Blevins, 57, a union coal miner from southwestern West Virginia.

Mr. Blevins, a registered Democrat, said he considered Mr. Gore an anticoal "tree hugger" and did not vote in 2000. But the strip mine where he works closed this year, leaving him unemployed. Now he is helping the Democrats, distributing leaflets that say Senator John Kerry will promote antipollution technology so that factories can keep burning West Virginia coal.

"I think Kerry will be for coal," he said.

Democrats say voters like Mr. Blevins, worried about health care costs, pension failures and employment losses nearly as deep as in neighboring Ohio, could return West Virginia and its five electoral votes to the Democratic fold next month.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/politics/campaign/13state.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1097724672-N8WmtErOIWqaod1Of0JFRg

[eriffle]

1. WV'ians pound this fact

$10 million will be invested in clean coal technology under John Kerry. Not only will this create new jobs in creating this technology, this technology will then be used through out the country to burn WV coal. Putting our coal miners back to work and easing our dependence on foreign oil. In 2000 Gov. Bush said in Morgantown, coal is vital to our national security. The only thing Bush has done for coal in WV is allow them to fill in our valleys from mountain top removal. We can mine and burn coal in a way that benefits our economy and will not ruin our environment.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. That's great to know...thanks

[prankster]

3. "coal...will not ruin our environment"

Are you mad? You seem to be aware of mountain top removal coal mining and then you state that that will not ruin your environment. Are you from Appalachia? Even accepting the premise that "clean coal" is indeed environmentally sound, coal as an energy source has two problems: it devastates the air into which its emissions are discharged and it devastates the land from which it is mined. Clean coal takes care of the first. How do you save the leveled mountains of West Virginia? How do you protect the poor folks who have lived in these valleys for generations, practically slaves to the coal companies, whose homes are now destroyed either by valley fill or by
its accompanying flooding?

By the way, Gore won the coalfields of W. Va. He lost the eastern part of the state because of guns.

Cheers,

Prankster

[eriffle]

6. Better Option?

What do you propose? We need electricity, and there are only certain ways to create this energy right now. I'm all for investing in solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources, but right now our major power options in the USA are coal, oil and natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear. All of these have their pros and cons. There have been many advances in mining over the past years and we can do much better than mountain top removal, and we need to work towards that. I don't imagine for a second that a coal burning power plant puts out just love and puppies, but coal scrubbers and other emission reducers can lower it to an acceptable level. Oil plants can also be cleaned up, but our coal is here and we need lower our dependence on foreign oil, daming up rivers for hydroelectric wastes land, kills fish, and changes our landscape. Even wind power here in WV requires deforesting along the mountain ridges. Clean coal techonology is not the answer, but it would go along way in serving our energy needs, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and reducing the overall amount of emissions. Because realize, it doesn't take much to convert a oil plant into a coal plant, so with clean coal techonology the emissions woule be lower than with the oil plant.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. As a carbon fuel it is a major greenhouse gas source

but I also firmly believe we must use it to help get off the oil addiction.

[bluestateguy]

4. I hope Robert Byrd will help out in the closing days of the campaign

Byrd hates Bush, though he usually is not an active campaigner.

[truthisfreedom]

5. America has a lot of coal. i've heard we have 200 years worth, but i have

not looked up anything. it's not a great fuel, but it's ours. the trouble we have overseas is oil. the less we need it, the better. Kerry wants to work on alternative energy... we need an infrastructure-based fuel for temporary use while we work on alt energy.

i want to believe.