Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, October 25, 2004
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
October 25, 2004
Las Vegas, Reno papers endorses Democrat John Kerry for president
Associated Press
LAS VEGAS - Two of the state's largest newspapers endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president Sunday, believing the Massachusetts senator would do everything in his power to block the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
The Las Vegas Sun said President George W. Bush has pushed for building the nuclear storage site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas despite hundreds of scientific questions that remain unanswered.
"In contrast, Kerry has been vocal in his opposition. This is good news for the whole nation, which will be imperiled if Yucca Mountain opens and nuclear waste is transported daily for the next several decades on public roads and railways that are not safe for such deadly material," the Las Vegas Sun wrote.
The Reno Gazette-Journal, which is in the heavily Republican Washoe County, said voters should put stock in Kerry's pledge to stop Yucca if they are to believe U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"As to Kerry's leadership abilities and honesty, northern Nevadans should take the word of Sen. Harry Reid. He has known Kerry for 20 years and has seen him in action close up. When Kerry says that he will not allow Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste repository, Reid says that Nevadans can believe him," the Gazette-Journal said.
In its endorsement, the Las Vegas Sun said it was confident that Kerry had the will and strength to deal with a hostile world.
"He says he will root out the real terrorists and either capture or kill them. We are impressed with Kerry's resolve in this area, which we cannot imagine being diluted or diverted as was the case with President Bush when he switched his focus to Iraq, a country that had posed no external threat but which is now a breeding ground for hate and terrorism."
The Gazette-Journal said Bush has mishandled the post-war struggle in Iraq.
"The war was conducted well. It was the aftermath that showed the administration at its worst. The administration was ill-prepared for what happened after the war ended, and the need to rebuild the infrastructure and rebuild army and police forces has contributed greatly to the troubles we still face there," the Reno newspaper wrote.
The Las Vegas Sun said Kerry is the only choice for president.
"He would be a president who would restore America's respect in the world. There would be a positive resolution to the war in Iraq. Our country would be safer, as our focus on fighting terrorism would not waver. The economy would be more oriented toward ordinary Americans. And Nevada and the country would be far safer without Yucca Mountain," according to the Las Vegas Sun.
The Gazette-Journal explained voters face a wrenching decision when they go to the polls in Nevada, a battleground state, but said it's difficult to deny that the "administration of George W. Bush largely has been a failure."
Bush, the Reno paper said, doesn't deserve to be re-elected.
"Whether Kerry can reverse these failed policies remains to be seen, but it would be foolish to reward the administration for its failures with four more years in office."
---------------------------
Slate
October 25, 2004
Rocky Mountain Mess
Colorado's Amendment 36 could send the election to court.
By David Kenner and Jill Hunter Pellettieri
Weekly Standard, Nov. 1
If Colorado passes Amendment 36 on Nov. 2, it could possibly be cause for legal action, says one feature article. Amendment 36 would divide the state's electoral votes between candidates based on the number of popular votes each received. Opponents would likely argue that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is a provision that "makes it quite clear, some say, that the authority to decide how states allocate their electoral votes rests with the legislature alone, and does not extend to judges, commissions, or voters in ballot initiatives." ... One article criticizes Kerry's misrepresentations about his antiwar activities because they "were not as innocent as he would like them to be remembered." Kerry led Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which was "squarely in the radical wing of the antiwar movement." ... Another article points to inconsistencies in Kerry's support of affirmative action. He once called affirmative action "an inherently limited and divisive program."—J.H.P.
New Yorker, Nov. 1
The editors endorse John Kerry for president. Most of the five-page editorial is spent criticizing Bush for the way he handled issues surrounding the war, terrorism, the environment, and the Justice Department, among others. John Kerry, however, "offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery." ... One reporter travels to Europe with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the administration's "most passionate and compelling advocate" for the war. Wolfowitz reveals "his hopes for a democratic Iraq now are modest;" he hopes it becomes "more liberal than what came before." Wolfowitz visits with hospitalized soldiers, telling them, "I'm sure we're going to win, and one day people will feel about you guys the way we feel about the guys who won World War II." ... Also, a collection of the late Richard Avedon's photography called "Democracy." Portraits include Jimmy Carter, Sean Penn, James Carville, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., soldiers, and other political personalities.—J.H.P.
Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 1
Last-minute pleas: While Kerry works busily to shore up support from black voters, Bush is counting on evangelical Christians to help him seal the deal, say two pieces in Newsweek. "Gay marriage has motivated millions of evangelicals in a way that even abortion never did." ... Ohio and Florida remain critical to both candidates' campaign efforts. Unlike the 2000 election, in which Bush relaxed his campaign in the week before the election, both parties are prepared to work until the 11th hour, says one Newsweek article. One Republican strategist said of Karl Rove, "Karl knows that we couldn't coast the way we did last time around." ... Working the "doors and phones" is the main strategy to accrue votes now. U.S. News says that "even Democrats concede that the GOP ground game has improved." In the 2000 election, Republican volunteers "had made 415,000 calls. Last week it was up to 1.8 million."
The messy aftermath: Time's cover story examines the potential for chaos after Nov. 2, if the race is as close as polls indicate. Both parties currently spend about $9 million per day on campaign efforts but have also allotted funds to combat any issues that might arise on Election Day and as votes are being tallied. One Democratic group, Election Protection 2004, has more than 5,000 lawyers ready to help the party manage any conflicts. The Republicans, meanwhile, have $10 million apportioned to litigation needs. ... Both U.S. News and Time run down potential Election Day pitfalls, including faulty election machinery that can result in inaccurate vote counts and issues surrounding provisional ballots. Although the Help America Vote Act "mandated provisional voting so that nobody would be refused a ballot for the wrong reason," "[l]awsuits over provisional ballots have already sprung up in five states" because of ambiguity about which provisional votes count.
Safety and security: The question of who will make America most secure is still on voters' minds. Time says some differences in the candidates' foreign policy may not be as stark in practice as they are in theory. "Just as Kerry would be likely to adopt the basic principles of Bush's military strategy against al-Qaeda, a re-elected Bush might have little choice but to embrance many of his opponent's prescriptions for Iraq." ... U.S. News explores al-Qaida's elusive nature. One terrorism consultant explains, "Al Qaeda has transformed from a group into a movement." The war in Iraq hasn't helped, either. "[E]xperts on radical Islam broadly agree that at least the short-term effects aren't good." ... How do voters' fears of war and terrorism play as a factor this election? "[I]n times of war, fear usually works to the advantage of the incumbent president," says U.S. News, but voters' frustration with the war in Iraq may test the limits of their support.—J.H.P.
New Republic, Nov. 1
The editors endorse John Kerry, exhibiting a passion against George Bush that outweighs their fondness for Kerry. Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic, have been characterized by "ideological certainty untroubled by empirical evidence" undertaken in a "sectarian, thuggish, and ultimately self-defeating spirit." In contrast, Kerry "has a record of fiscal honesty and responsibility," and "seems inclined to use American power where it could genuinely damage Al Qaeda." … This article says that Bush's support for storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain could cost him Nevada and perhaps the presidential election. "With so many good reasons for Bush's defeat, it would be more than a little ironic if the final blow was prompted by something he actually did right." … "TRB" thinks that the conservatives' tarring of their opponents as "liberals" has lost its effectiveness. Bush's reliance on it in the final weeks of the campaign "may be a sign that the president ... knows he has a weak hand."—D.K.
Economist, Oct. 21
"The world needs to swallow its natural scepticism about Mr. Sharon's motives" and support his plan for the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. An Israeli exit from Gaza "will improve the lives of the 1.4m Palestinians there" by reducing armed conflicts involving Israeli soldiers stationed there to protect the settlers. "Gaza freed from military occupation could be a[n] ... example of the land-for-peace model that can be copied on the West Bank." … An article re-examines the truism that divided government yields fiscal discipline. Divided government may help curb government spending, but it is hardly a panacea. "Some of the worst deficits ... occurred during periods of divided government" under Truman, Ford, and Reagan. ... An article remembers the life of Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstructivsm, "an ill-defined habit of dismantling texts by revealing their assumptions and contradictions." Derrida trafficked in "weak puns ... bombastic rhetoric and illogical ramblings."—D.K.
The Nation, Nov. 1
The magazine uncovers a conflict of interest for Iraqi debt envoy James Baker. According to this special investigation, Kuwait received a proposal from a foundation consisting of "well-connected firms" about how to "protect and realize claims against Iraq" totaling $57 billion. One firm is the Carlyle Group, where Baker has "an estimated $180 million stake." Documents obtained say that "[If] Kuwait agrees to transfer the debts to the consortium's foundation, the consortium will use these personal connections [with 'key decision-makers'] to persuade world leaders that Iraq must 'maximize' its debt payments to Kuwait." Thus far, Kuwait has neither accepted nor rejected the proposal, but the Carlyle Group, in particular, stands to gain a $1 billion investment from the deal. The Carlyle Group says "neither the Carlyle Group nor James Baker wrote, edited, or authorized this proposal." Baker has long been a contentious choice for the post—the New York Times advocated his resignation in a Dec. 12, 2003, editorial.—J.H.P.
New York Times Magazine, Oct. 24
The cover story explores how being raised by gay parents affected the upbringing of Ry Russo-Young. Now an adult, Russo-Young, who's straight, admits she feels "in between queer and straight culture," but that she appreciates her perspective. Studies offer varying takes—one concludes there's no difference between children of gays and straights, another "argues passionately that there are differences," but that they're positive, and a third concludes that children of gay parents are "likely to attain a similar orientation." ... Daphne Merkin and Slate's Meghan O'Rourke profile two influential writers, Alice Munro and Marilynne Robinson, and explore what the women's lives reveal about their writing. Merkin says that Munro's experiences during her mother's struggle with Parkinson's brought "the deep sense of regret in its wake that appears and reappears in her stories." Robinson, a Congregationalist, appreciates the religion's emphasis on "freedom of individual conscience." O'Rourke says, "Exploring the demands of conscience is the heart of Robinson's work."—J.H.P.
David Kenner is a Slate intern. Jill Hunter Pellettieri is a Slate assistant editor.
---------------------------
Plain Dealer
October 24, 2004
Energy fight? Not this year
Elizabeth Sullivan
The guys on the campaign trail keep trying to ig nore the trillion-pound rhinoceros in the room.
But soaring oil prices thunder the obvious: America had better prepare for a possible fall in world oil output if it doesn't want to be left without affordable energy options.
The world isn't running out of oil, yet.
There are still more than 1.3 trillion barrels of proven and probable oil reserves in the ground. Most of it is in the Middle East, but vast amounts also lie in the Western hemisphere and in Russia. Locked in hard-to-reach areas, tricky deposits or partially unexplored regions could be even more oil that will become profitable as oil prices soar.
But wars, miscalculations, politics and outright lies about proven reserves have the po tential to inflame fears and lead to embargoes, oilfield sei zures, trade disruptions and a loss of investor confidence.
Already, some major oil pro ducers have cut back their esti mates of their own "proven re serves" in effect saying that the oil they thought they could pump cheaply and quickly won't be so easy to get at.
Oil worker strikes, terrorist attacks and political unrest recently have depressed output and sent oil prices to non-inflation-adjusted records.
Oil futures have risen 80 percent in a year.
Meanwhile, China is buying up all it can, blowing apart previous calculations for demand and pinching oil markets further.
During the oil price shocks of the 1970s, America imported about 40 percent of its oil. Today it's closer to 60 percent, and we're beginning to import significant amounts of our natural gas, too.
Many Americans will have to pay hundreds of dollars extra this winter for heating fuels, while energy costs are pounding the bottom line for U.S. airlines, and beginning to act as a drag on consumer spending.
Yet U.S. energy policy is the issue that virtually no candidate wants to discuss. The best options are seen as too draconian and politically suicidal - among them, forcing up average fuel-economy standards for SUVs, for instance, raising gas taxes or leaning on businesses to conserve.
Sen. John Kerry co-sponsored an energy amendment two years ago that would have raised average fuel standards to 36 miles per gallon, but "has since backed off mentioning any specific miles-per-gallon figure, although his platform and a spokeswoman stressed fuel efficiency was a cornerstone of his energy and environmental plan," reports the Boston Globe.
Other possible measures have significant downsides, such as President George W. Bush's proposal to drill for oil in the Alaska wildlife refuge, or building more coal-fired plants that will pollute even with expensive gasification or scrubbing techniques, and nuclear plants that generate waste that stays radioactive for 10,000 years.
The result this campaign season is political opportunism trumping solutions.
Kerry is the culprit of the moment, as he panders to Nevada voters by trashing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site (a spot that should be suspect because of the area's volcanic history, not because of electoral votes) and remakes himself as an advocate of "clean coal" to please the folks in southeast Ohio.
But President George W. Bush earns potentially blacker marks if he took this nation to war in part over oil, without ever acknowledging it.
The evidence is circumstantial, but compelling: One of the great conundrums of the coming oil crunch is how to diversify away from the Saudi spigot. Iraq, sitting on the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, and Afghanistan, a potential gateway to the Caspian Sea region, provide some answers.
Earlier this year, the New Yorker magazine revealed a "top-secret" Feb. 3, 2001, National Security Council document, that the magazine said "directed the NSC staff to cooperate fully with [Vice President Dick Cheney's] Energy Task Force as it considered the 'melding' of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: 'the review of operational policies towards rogue states,' such as Iraq, and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.' "
Now that loaded word "capture" could mean acquisition through friendly persuasion or deals, not conquest.
But the Bush administration's refusal in the teeth of repeated requests from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office - which resorted to legal action to try to elicit information - to reveal even the most basic details about the 3½-month energy task force feeds suspicions that all was not as it should have been.
The GAO couldn't even get plausible data from Cheney's office on how much the energy task force cost. GAO backed off its legal challenge after receiving a judicial rebuff on jurisdictional grounds, but outside groups still are trying to force the files open.
One of them - the nonprofit group Judicial Watch - last year made public a densely annotated Iraq oil map dated March 2001, along with charts of Iraqi oil and gas projects and a list of "foreign suitors" for Iraqi oil, that it received as part of its legal efforts to open up the energy task force documents.
Such materials should not be considered in isolation.
That's why this administration must reveal the full range of deliberations of Cheney's task force and those who advised it.
Not only is such transparency part of what elected representatives owe those they serve, but it would help put to rest the inevitable speculation that the Cheney group was plotting, as early as 2001, hostile action to seize Iraq's oil fields.
Sullivan is The Plain Dealer's foreign-affairs columnist and an associate editor of the editorial pages.
Contact her at: bsullivan@plaind.com, 216-999-6153
---------------------------
Deseret News
October 25, 2004
Nuclear plant security attacked
And report echoes Utah concerns about risks from N-wastes
By Donna Kemp Spangler and Jerry D. Spangler
WASHINGTON — The watchdog group Public Citizen is taking the Bush administration to task over inadequate security at the nation's nuclear power plants, including the potential catastrophe from a terrorist attack on spent nuclear fuel — the same waste that some utilities want to store in above-ground casks on Goshute tribal lands in Tooele County.
The report notes that "lightly protected spent-fuel pools are situated outside containment areas" and are subject to terrorist attack. The same holds true for the above-ground casks at the nation's nuclear power plants and potentially those that would be stored in Tooele County far outside any containment area.
Those same concerns have been raised by Utah officials for years.
"Instead of getting straight answers, we get platitudes and feel-good letters," said Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. "We are being told there's no problem, that it's safe. But we don't believe that is the case."
Utah officials have argued before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Atomic Safety Licensing Board that spent fuel rods in above-ground casks are an inviting target for terrorist attacks, as is the shipment of the waste from nuclear power plants scattered around the nation.
The nuclear industry insists it has beefed up security at nuclear power plants to the tune of $1 billion since 2001. The number of security officers at 64 plants has risen by 60 percent to 8,000, and "physical improvements at sites include additional protection against vehicle bombs as well as additional protective measures against various types of terrorist threats," according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
"Those claims have been discredited time and again," added institute spokesman Mitch Singer of the Public Citizen study.
But the Public Citizen report observed that security improvements are a closely guarded secret, and the public has no way of knowing if the improvements are sufficient.
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has thrown a shroud of secrecy over security deliberations," the report states.
The NRC has assured state officials that security measures in place to protect nuclear power plants would be sufficient to protect nuclear-waste casks in Utah.
The Public Citizen report highlights the potential terrorist threats at nuclear power plants, not the risk of storing the waste in the Utah desert.
But it also highlights the risks of transporting wastes, criticizing the administration's support for a plan to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, Nev. If enacted, it "would result in tens of thousands of rail and truck shipments of highly radioactive spent fuel — all potential terrorist targets — from reactors to a massive nuclear waste site."
Singer responded that it has been recognized since the 1950s that it is safer to have "one place buried 1,000 feet deep that borders on a military installation" for the nation's stockpile of nuclear waste. "It would be the Fort Knox of nuclear waste storage."
The Nuclear Energy Institute has not taken a position on the proposal to store waste in Utah.
Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of mostly Eastern nuclear power utilities, tired of waiting for the Yucca Mountain facility that is still years away, are awaiting final license approval for a temporary storage site on Goshute lands in Skull Valley.
The plan calls for up to 40,000 tons of highly radioactive waste to be stored in rows of casks on the valley floor about 70 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The waste could remain above ground for 20 years with the possibility of another 20-year lease after that.
The state has opposed the storage of spent nuclear fuel in Utah but has so far failed in its arguments to block PFS from obtaining the federal license for a temporary waste facility. The license application is still pending, and a ruling on a separate state claim is expected in January.
The state has also failed to stop the project through other avenues of litigation and legislation.
PFS project manager Scott Northard did not return calls.
The Public Citizen report cites one study by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that estimated the loss of tens of thousands of lives within 500 miles, and a Brookhaven National Laboratory report that predicted a contamination of 188 square miles in the event of burning radioactive wastes.
The report also criticizes the Bush administration for its cozy relationship with the nuclear industry, pointing out that Bush and the Republican National Committee have received $19.9 million in campaign contributions from the industry since 2000.
Another study in 2002 by a Washington, D.C., newspaper found the industry spent $51.2 million lobbying Congress. Another $149 million was spent lobbying the White House and executive branch agencies, the study reported.
The result, says Public Citizen, is that "three years after 9/11, Congress still has not enacted any legislation to reduce the terrorist threat at nuclear power plants, and the Bush appointees at the NRC have resisted using their regulatory powers to respond to the terrorism threat.
"For the administration and their close friends in the nuclear industry, the concern that increased security expenses could drive up the cost of nuclear power — and threaten industry profits — apparently trumps national security," it adds.
Not so, the industry responds.
"U.S. nuclear power plants are widely acknowledged by independent experts as the most secure facilities in the nation's industrial infrastructure," according to a Nuclear Energy Institute statement.
And the casks used to store the waste are concrete and rebar that have been tested "time and again" to withstand explosives and airplane crashes.
"Given the tight security around nuclear power plants and the technology of the safety measures, terrorists are going to go after an easier target," Singer said.
The Public Citizen report is available at www.homelandunsecured.org.
E-mail: donna@desnews.com; spang@desnews.com
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 22, 2004
Editorial: John Kerry, our choice for president
Las Vegas SUN
Weekend Edition
October 23 - 24, 2004
Over the past several months John Kerry has emerged as the antidote to George W. Bush, a president whose first term in office has led to a divided nation and world. In three debates with the president and on the campaign trail, Kerry has spoken plainly about his plans for restoring reason to the White House. In evaluating Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, we can foresee an administration whose decisions would be based on thoughtful consideration of world affairs and a genuine concern for ordinary Americans.
Here in Nevada, we have Kerry's promise to bring his presidential powers full force against the dangerous federal plan to bury high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. President Bush, campaigning in Nevada in 2000, masked his true stance on Yucca Mountain by saying his decision would be based on "sound science." Instead, he pushed for Yucca Mountain almost from day one in the White House. In 2002, with hundreds of scientific questions unanswered, he signed the bill authorizing Yucca Mountain.
In contrast, Kerry has been vocal in his opposition. In the Senate, he voted against Bush's plan to send nuclear waste here. And he's told Nevadans that he will block funding for Yucca Mountain, and that his appointments to relevant departments, such as Energy, Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, will go only to those who share his view that the project should die. This is good news for the whole nation, which will be imperiled if Yucca Mountain opens and nuclear waste is transported daily for the next several decades on public roads and railways that are not safe for such deadly material.
Regarding the most important international and national issue, we are confident about Kerry's will and strength in dealing with the hostile world that has taken shape over the past four years. He has spoken loud and clear about the course he will take in dealing with terrorism. He says he will root out the real terrorists and either capture or kill them. We are impressed with Kerry's resolve in this area, which we cannot imagine being diluted or diverted as was the case with President Bush when he switched his focus to Iraq, a country that had posed no external threat but which is now a breeding ground for hate and terrorism. Kerry would bring this war to the victory that eludes President Bush. And by building alliances with world leaders to forge a real coalition against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, he would make the United States and the w orld much safer.
Kerry rightly criticizes Bush's homeland security policies. Bush was indecisive on whether to create the Homeland Security Department, and when he did, it came with hard-to-understand color-coded warnings, which Kerry accurately sized up as little more than "photo opportunities." The department is slow to award federal funds to local first responders and stands indefensible in the face of Kerry's charges that our borders, ports and chemical and nuclear plants are no more secure today than before 9/11.
In turning around the economy, Kerry would invest in ordinary Americans rather than in the wealthy, the top 1 percent of whom received $89 billion in tax cuts just last year. He would cut taxes for middle-class people, who would actually use the money for home improvements and other job-creating expenditures. This would do wonders, as would his plan to end incentives for companies to export American jobs overseas. Under Bush, the net loss in jobs stands at more than a million. His administration coyly cites job gains without mentioning that the gains are nowhere near enough to offset the number of people looking for work. Bush clings to a simplistic "trickle down" economic theory that leaves average and lower-income Americans bone dry. In contrast, Kerry's plan is rooted in the needs and dreams of regular people raising families.
Kerry is also strong on health care policy, which under the Bush administration has evolved into a boondoggle for insurance and drug companies but a disservice to the American public. The Lewin Group, a nonpartisan health care research group in Washington, estimates that on our present course, 49.5 million Americans will be without health insurance by 2006, an increase of about 5 million over the number of people who are now uninsured. The Lewin analysts said Bush's plan to deal with this crisis would reduce the number of uninsured by only 17 percent, while Kerry's plan would achieve a 51 percent reduction.
Kerry would establish a national trust for education, rather than inventing buzz words (No Child Left Behind) whose promises go unfulfilled. He would preserve, rather than exploit, the environment. Alternative sources would have a real place in his energy plan, which would be drafted in the open as opposed to Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings with oil and nuclear power executives.
We heartily endorse John Kerry. He would be a president who would restore America's respect in the world. There would be a positive resolution to the war in Iraq. Our country would be safer, as our focus on fighting terrorism would not waver. The economy would be more oriented toward ordinary Americans. And Nevada and the country would be far safer without Yucca Mountain.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
Columnist Jon Ralston: Ten questions before voting
Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the Ralston Report. He can be reached at (702) 870-7997 or at ralston@vegas.com.
Weekend Edition
October 23 - 24, 2004
Like me, I am sure you are counting down the days until the election so we can get down to the serious business of the state, which, of course, is impeaching a shameless constitutional officer who holds a superfluous position no one cares about.
But as we breathlessly await Controller Kathy Augustine's public hanging next month, questions remain about Campaign '04 that should be resolved within the next 10 days -- or so we hope. Ten come to mind and may be of relevance to those of you who are not among the 100,000-plus early voters who have treated your franchise as a convenience to be dispensed with rather than a sacred right to be exercised only after all the information is in:
No. 1: If you are among the few in Nevada who cannot make up your minds on the presidential race, why wouldn't George W. Bush's behavior on Yucca Mountain make the difference? Assume you admire the president's resolve but worry about the misleading reasons for war and/or respect John Kerry's service but wonder about his equivocation reflex.
All politics, even presidential politics, ultimately may be local. Kerry at least will try to stop Yucca Mountain -- he has made too many specific promises to do otherwise. Bush has for four years patronized the state, embarrassed its GOP leaders and lied about his intentions -- why shouldn't this be decisive if you are indecisive?
No. 2: Why isn't the right decision -- with the possible exception of the advisory question on sales taxes for police -- to vote against every initiative on the ballot to protest the abuse of the process? The doctors and lawyers are the biggest perpetrators of this fraud, with both misleading the public with silly ads to pass their initiatives. (Anyone else swerve to miss a doctor walking out of town as you drive to California on Interstate 15?)
I know our leaders often don't act like leaders. But this solution -- circumventing the republic to allow opportunists and special interests to manipulate the system -- is the greater of two evils.
No. 3: Which party has been more craven this year? GOP leaders have meekly and spinelessly refused to try to extract anything on any issue (Yucca comes to mind) from the president during an election in which Nevada is as important as it ever been -- truly an impeachable offense. And the Democrats are so desperate to hold onto their only power base in the state -- the Assembly -- that their leaders have protected some members unfit for office (the leering Mark Manendo) and ignored obvious problems with others (two county employees fired for double dipping).
No. 4: Why does it seem that there are more legislative candidates than ever with no visible means of support, no record of any real jobs and no reason to serve other than they need the elected position to survive? Not to single anyone out -- well, maybe a few -- but has anyone figured out what Mark Manendo, Anthony Bandiero, Chad Christensen and Francis Allen do for a living?
No. 5: Does it bother anyone else that with no widespread evidence -- at least not yet -- of voter fraud that the parties are both sending in swarms of lawyers to lay the groundwork for post-Election Day lawsuits to challenge the results if their man doesn't win the White House? If Nevada is decided by a few thousand votes, and the presidential contest is close, too, the stringing up of Ms. Augustine may have to wait.
No. 6: Despite the overheated rhetoric and ludicrous innuendo, does anyone really think the world will change much if Tom Gallagher or Jon Porter go to Congress or if Lynette Boggs McDonald, David Goldwater, Tom Collins or Shari Buck go to Grand Central Parkway? The irony of these campaigns is that the intensity and volume of the rhetoric is in inverse proportion to the actual differences between the candidates.
No. 7: In the Year of Sen. Harry "Pinky" Reid using his childhood friends in his ads and Rep. Jim Gibbons using a supposedly apolitical ballot initiative (Education First) in his campaign commercials, is there any substance out there? Positive is one thing; insipid and vacuous is another.
No. 8: Is Kenny Guinn still the governor? The man vilified by his own party since Sessions '03 has not been a visible political force this year. Will he be in Session(s) '05? Can he be?
No. 9: Why has the largest tax increase in history not sparked some kind of tax revolt in Nevada despite the best laid plans of certain Republicans? I wonder if that means it didn't affect most Nevadans that much.
No. 10: Speaking of Augustine, why haven't legislative leaders announced that while they will give the controller due process, they will not allow her to defend herself by using calumny against others? Get in and get out. Or someone get her a job so she will resign. They should not allow it to take more than two weeks -- and that sounds too long.
So don't vote early. Wait for the last debate to be done, the last dirty trick to be played and the last mailer to arrive. And then it's time to celebrate that all the political nonsense will be over -- unless you count the Augustine lynching, the run-up to Session '05, the 120 days (at least) to follow and then we will be fully engaged in the race for governor.
Great news: It's never over even when it's over.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
October 23, 2004
Kerry should be Nevada´s choice
Editorial
Americans face a wrenching decision when they go to the polls on Nov. 2 (or, as in Nevada, earlier). They will be choosing between a president whose administration, by most critical measures, has been a failure, and a challenger about whom they know little. They will be choosing between the known and the unknown at a time when the world seems a far more complicated and dangerous than it did just four years ago. They will be choosing between an incumbent president whose policies speak for themselves and a long-time senator with a record of little distinction and less to indicate that he can make good on the many promises he has made during this long campaign season.
That´s why the gap between Republicans and Democrats is far wider today than it has been at any time in recent memory and why so many voters still remain in the undecided center with just a little over one week to go until the election.
That conflict manifests itself in the Gazette-Journal´s Editorial Board, which found itself split on the choice for president. The choice came down to which candidate best represented the values that Americans hold most dear: compassion for the have-nots and those who feel they have been left out, a dedication to the principles set forth in the Bill of Rights, and a commitment to open government as well as free and open debate. That candidate is Sen. John Kerry.
That the administration of George W. Bush largely has been a failure is difficult to deny.
Iraq and the War on Terror: The war in Iraq could have been justified as an extension of the first Gulf War. The timid and possibly corrupt United Nations refused to enforce its own requirements on Saddam Hussein´s regime, and it was up to the United States to take action. Instead, the administration has changed its justification for the war monthly, and there is plenty of reliable evidence that the decision to go to war in Iraq had been made in the administration´s earliest days.
Still, the war was conducted well. It was the aftermath that showed the administration at its worst. The president had every reason to expect the Iraqi army to collapse and run; that´s what it did in Kuwait. He also had every reason to expect that chaos would follow the overthrow of the government; his father, President George H.W. Bush, had warned of exactly that in a memo after the conclusion of the first Gulf War. Yet the administration was ill-prepared for what happened after the war ended, and the need to rebuild the infrastructure and rebuild army and police forces has contributed greatly to the troubles we still face there.
Meanwhile, there is little real evidence to support the conclusion that international terrorists have been routed or that the U.S. truly is safer than it was the day before Sept. 11, 2001.
The economy: The role of the president in guiding the economy is overrated. Yet the economy has lost jobs during this president´s tenure for the first time in some 70 years, and the average American has seen his or her take-home income drop for the first time in decades. And when asked about the loss of jobs in the final debate two weeks ago, Bush cited the No Child Left Behind Act, an important accomplishment (a free, public education is America´s most important anti-poverty program) but not an entire economic policy.
Likewise, tax cuts are part of a fiscal program, but not the entire fiscal program. The president and the Republican Party, which controls both houses of Congress, have squandered a budget surplus and raised the federal budget deficit to record levels. As demonstrated by the pork-laden corporate tax bill that the president quietly signed Friday, Bush has made no effort to rein in the profligate Congress.
Health care: Likewise, the president has oversimplified the health care crisis by insisting on tort reform, a needed measure but not the entire solution for what ails a healthcare system that rapidly is becoming unaffordable for most Americans.
Open government: Most troubling has been the president´s antipathy to science and dissenting views. He notably has ignored scientists´ recommendations on Yucca Mountain, and has removed dissenters from government panels. Reports that don´t fully agree with the administration´s views — on environmental issues, for instance, and even on library policies — have been squelched.
Whether Kerry can reverse these failed policies remains to be seen, but it would be foolish to reward the administration for its failures with four more years in office.
That leaves character and honesty as the most important issues for voters.
The most discussed character issue is probably the least important. The controversy over the two candidates´ military service is largely irrelevant more than three decades later. The last word should belong to Jim Rassman, a lifelong Republican who walked unbidden into the campaign office of the Democrat Kerry, who he hadn´t seen since Vietnam, and volunteered to help out because, the Special Forces veteran says, “Long ago, this man saved my life in Vietnam.’ Case closed.
As to Kerry´s leadership abilities and honesty, Northern Nevadans should take the word of Sen. Harry Reid. Nevadans have entrusted Reid with their state´s position on the national stage for 18 years. He has known Kerry for 20 years and has seen him in action close up. When Kerry says that he will not allow Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste repository, Reid says that Nevadans can believe him. And when Reid says that Kerry is a superb leader who will make this nation proud again, Nevadans can believe him.
On Nov. 2, the ticket of Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards should be Nevada´s choice.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
October 23, 2004
Candidates deadlocked in Nevada
Bush, Kerry still fighting for 5 electoral votes
Anjeanette Damon
As Election Day nears and the number of undecided voters dwindles, President Bush and U.S. Sen. John Kerry remain in a tight-locked race for Nevada´s five electoral votes, according to a new statewide poll.
Mirroring results from polls conducted throughout the fiercely contested race in Nevada, 49 percent of the 600 likely voters surveyed would vote for Bush and 47 percent would vote for Kerry, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal/News 4 poll.
Only 2 percent of those surveyed remained undecided — representing a shrinking ability for either candidate to break open the race before Nov. 2. While Bush has consistently maintained a slight lead over his Democratic challenger, poll results have nearly always put the two in a statistical dead heat.
“It´s a hell of a race. It really is,’ said pollster Del Ali. “Right now I´d be shocked if any candidate won by more than 3 or 4 points in Nevada.
The poll was conducted between Oct. 19 and Oct. 21 by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
In a race this tight, this close to Election Day, political analysts said the winner will be determined by whichever campaign prevails in the “ground war’ — an all-out effort to get voters to the polls.
In Nevada, Republicans have traditionally won that game, having a party that was better organized than the Democrats.
But this year, Nevada´s swing status has brought dozens of political nonprofit groups to the state to both register voters and move them to the polls. The Democrats have organized like never before, and both parties have launched intensive get-out-the-vote drives.
Hundreds of volunteers on both sides are walking Nevada neighborhoods, knocking on the doors of their voters, even driving them to early voting locations.
“It is flushing the neighborhoods to get people out,’ said Michelle Marto, Reno spokeswoman for America Coming Together, a political nonprofit created to defeat Bush. “We are going to keep asking and keep asking and keep asking. We tell people if they´re tired of the door knocks and the phone calls that the quickest way to get off our list is to vote.’
Chris Carr, executive director of the Nevada Republican Party, said the GOP won´t be outdone this year.
“I think we´re doing just as good or better,’ he said. “We´ve got walkers walking even in the cold rain up there in Reno. We are on the phone and doing our door-to-door. We´ve got vans taking people to the polls. We are out there.’
The close race also means independent candidate Ralph Nader could pose some problems for Kerry, Ali said. The poll showed Nader with 1 percent of the vote and the other third-party candidates with another 1 percent.
“If Nader gets 2 percent, Kerry can´t win Nevada,’ Ali said. “He´s got to keep him at that threshold or Bush wins the state.’
In Washoe County, a state Republican stronghold, 53 percent of respondents said they´d vote for Bush and 43 percent said Kerry. In Clark County, which is mostly Democratic, Bush had 42 percent and Kerry had 53 percent.
Statewide, 10 percent of Democrats said they would vote for Bush and 9 percent of Republicans said they´d vote for Kerry.
Kerry did better with women, 50 percent of whom chose him, and Bush did better with men at 53 percent.
A separate question on which candidate would be more likely to “successfully resolve’ the situation in Iraq showed Kerry narrowing the gap between himself and Bush, who has traditionally seen stronger support of his war-time policies.
Forty-five percent of respondents said Bush would be more successful, while 44 percent chose Kerry.
Ali said the results indicate Kerry´s strategy of separating the Iraq war from the war on terrorism is working.
“That is why he got back in the game,’ Ali said. “If the election were held right now, Kerry would win. Whether he would win Nevada, well, he could still come up short. Kerry needs the Iraq voter and the Yucca Mountain voter. If they come out, he wins.’
John Scire, a University of Nevada, Reno political science professor, said Kerry has “made tremendous progress on the Iraq war issue.’
“People have come to believe he is not going to cut and run and therefore stay the course,’ Scire said. “At the same time, they are looking at Bush thinking perhaps he doesn´t really have a plan. I think the undecideds are moving over on this issue.’
A separate question on who would be better to handle domestic issues, the candidates were nearly even, with Bush getting 45 percent and Kerry 44 percent. Political analysts said Kerry should have had a stronger showing on domestic issues.
Both campaigns called the poll good news.
“This race is a statistical tie,’ said Sean Smith, the Kerry-Edwards campaign. “If we get the turnout we think we are going to, this is going to be a blue state.’
That 44 percent of voters trust Kerry to resolve the Iraq war points to his momentum in the state, Smith said.
“That is amazing against an incumbent president who has been commander in chief for four years that they have that little confidence in him and with the way things are going,’ Smith said.
Bush-Cheney spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the poll doesn´t show Bush losing ground in the state.
“We understand these are difficult times in Iraq,’ she said. “But John Kerry´s inability to take a single clear position on the situation should trouble voters.’
Eric Herzik, a political analyst and professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said the Kerry campaign should be troubled that most state polls have consistently shown their candidate behind.
“When you´re 12 days out, you are running out of time to convince the very few undecideds or anybody who is a weak Bush supporter to switch their commitment and come to you,’ he said.
But in the final days of the election — as record numbers take advantage of early voting here — the Kerry campaign isn´t neglecting Nevada.
Kerry made his first trip to Reno on Friday, speaking to a crowd that filled Lawlor Events Center . He also plans to speak at an outdoor rally in Las Vegas on Tuesday — one week before Election Day.
“Kerry´s visit will help, he´ll get a little boost,’ Herzik said of the Reno stop. “But it is somewhat anti-climactic that Bush came here twice. Kerry really got trumped up here when Bush came here a second time.’
Schmitt said did not know if Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney were planning to stop in Nevada again before Nov. 2. But their schedule through Thursday does not include the Silver State.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 24, 2004
CABINET DEPARTMENTS: Political travel alleged
Critics say Bush appointees visiting contested states to aid president
By Samantha Young
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Interior Secretary Gale Norton traveled to Minnesota on Oct. 13, accepting a donation of five power generators to aid Florida hurricane victims. Two days earlier, in rural Wisconsin, she held a roundtable discussion with business leaders.
This past Tuesday she flew down to Florida the day before an official event to campaign alongside Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mel Martinez.
Like most members of President Bush's Cabinet, Norton has hit the road this fall. She's advertising the president's vision of conservation and partnership in states being contested on Nov. 2.
Norton is not alone among Interior Department appointees. Other top federal land managers have focused travel to the nation's political battlegrounds to distribute grant money, hand out awards and spotlight the president's achievements.
They have been frequent visitors to the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Wisconsin, according to a review of travel schedules, department news releases, speeches, and media reports.
Meanwhile, Western states that overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2000 -- such as Idaho, Utah and Wyoming -- have been given less attention by Interior officials, records show.
High-ranking Bush appointees in other Cabinet departments also are traveling this fall.
Nevada has hosted several of them in recent weeks.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi and Norton announced a veterans hospital in Las Vegas on Sept. 27.
Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, held a news conference Wednesday in front of Bush supporters to pitch medical liability reform, although the media largely used his visit to focus on the current flu vaccine shortage.
And White House drug czar John Walters was in Reno on Wednesday to announce federal grants to fight methamphetamine production.
The White House has denied that Cabinet members have been instructed to travel to battlegrounds.
"Cabinet members set their own schedules and determine their own visits in accordance with their official duties," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell.
But top Interior officials have logged more than 95 taxpayer-funded trips so far this year to a dozen battleground states, according to records compiled for Norton, Deputy Secretary Steven Griles, assistant secretaries Lynn Scarlett and Rebecca Watson. That's more than half their total 162 trips.
"Travel by political appointees is normal. However what's exceptional and unprecedented is everybody is traveling," said an Interior official.
Interior officials have been to Nevada 10 times, to Arizona 16 times, and to Colorado 14 times.
By comparison, Utah has hosted three visits. Officials have traveled to Idaho four times and Wyoming once.
In addition, Kathleen Clarke, director of the Bureau of Land Management, has traveled to 15 states this year, spending most of her travel time in Western battle- grounds.
The travel has caused some grumbling among career employees at Interior, who say business has come to a standstill except for carefully timed announcements in states that could tip the presidential election on Nov. 2.
The amount of travel by Interior Department appointees has been unprecedented this year, according to several longtime officials.
"There's been nothing remotely like this in previous administrations to have this many people on the road virtually campaigning for the president," said one official with more than two decades of government service.
"The travel has mirrored the polls exactly, all at taxpayer expense," the official said.
In 2004, either Norton or another Interior official has traveled to at least one battleground state each month. Someone visited Arizona every month, records show.
Clarke spent a week in March crisscrossing New Mexico and a week in April touring public lands in Arizona. She visited Nevada five times this year, according to records.
"The Bush administration wants to get their message out in how well they are doing," said Eric Herzik, political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. "In Nevada, you send whoever is in charge of federal lands given that so much is owned by the federal government."
Interior spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said the trips were appropriate, adding Norton expected her staff to travel to get in touch with communities affected by Interior decision makers.
"If you're sitting in Washington and saying all the rules and regulations should be decided in Washington then it's easy to stay in the office," Kreisher said. "If you believe in cooperative conservation, as the secretary does, then you're out in the country meeting with local officials and including them in the process."
One Cabinet member who has not been to Nevada during the campaign is Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, unpopular among most people in the state after recommending Bush designate Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for a nuclear waste repository.
But Abraham has traveled to New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio -- all battlegrounds -- this month to personally announce Energy Department grants, according to the Inside Energy newsletter.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has accepted invitations to speak in the weeks leading up to the election, drawing criticism from Democrats. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under President Carter, said Rice was injecting politics into what traditionally is a nonpartisan post.
Political pundits say it is routine for Cabinet secretaries to expand their travel in an election year, and that the practice dates to the 1960s.
"Every incumbent administration does it to help their president or party nominee and every out-of-power nominee complains about it," said Larry Sabato, political science professor at the University of Virginia.
An Interior source said department officials have tailored trips when polls show Bush might need help in particular states. For instance, when it was determined Minnesota was competitive this summer, Clarke highlighted fitness at a Minneapolis event in June. Norton followed up with visits in June, July and October.
Kreisher declined to comment on the allegation, deferring questions to the Bush campaign. Bush spokeswoman Tracy Schmidt directed questions involving official government travel to the White House.
"They are campaigning under the guise of official business," Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said of Norton and other Interior executives.
Ruch noted that on Aug. 9, the same day Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry held an event at the Grand Canyon to criticize the president's funding for national parks, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel issued an advisory warning federal employees against assisting in political events on government grounds.
But, Ruch said, two weeks later, Norton held an event at Bandelier National Park in New Mexico. It was billed as an official "Founders Day" celebration. In the course of the event, Norton defended the Bush administration's record on parks and blamed funding shortfalls on the Clinton administration.
"I doubt anything the secretary did involved asking for a vote or violating the Hatch Act," Kreisher said, referring to the law governing federal campaigning.
"We are expected to convey the president's policies," she added.
Norton also has scheduled travel to appear with congressional candidates in Maine, California, Washington and Alaska. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, featured Norton at an Oct. 16 luncheon, and Martinez, the Florida U.S. Senate candidate, this week invited Norton to tour a state park with him.
Kreisher said local campaigns reimburse Norton for a share of her travel in cases where political events occur on the same day the secretary conducts official business. Interior employees are forbidden to accompany the secretary to the event, she added.
---------------------------
Boston Globe
October 24, 2004
Diversified energy options should include nuclear power
By Charles Stein,
With the price of oil and natural gas at nosebleed levels, you might imagine that energy policy would be a high priority in the current presidential campaign.
No such luck.
The subject rarely comes up, and when it does the candidates revert to simplistic partisan answers: Republicans like to drill; Democrats prefer to conserve. The truth is it will a take a range of options to build the energy future. As with investing, the correct approach is to diversify our choices so we don't place too big a bet on any one solution. One of those choices should be nuclear power, especially if we are serious about preserving the environment.
Nuclear power dropped off the radar screen about 15 years ago. The plants became prohibitively expensive to build and the public lost confidence in the industry's ability to produce energy safely.
But nuclear power didn't go away. Instead it got better. Utilities learned to shrink the amount of time the plants are out of service, which means those same plants operate for more hours and produce more electricity than they once did. Nuclear power today supplies 20 percent of the nation's electricity, second only to the 52 percent generated by coal. The industry doesn't make headlines because the plants don't blow up or make people glow in the dark.
Nuclear power has other advantages. It doesn't come from politically unstable countries and it doesn't release greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. That last point is critical. Consider: A year ago, a team of scientists and economists from MIT released a report on nuclear power. The project started with a simple premise: that eventually the world is going to have to get serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
"Without nuclear in the mix, it will be impossible to achieve the reductions most people feel will be necessary," said Richard Lester, director of MIT's Industrial Performance Center, who participated in the study.
The MIT report is not a love letter to nuclear power. The authors concede upfront that nuclear plants are expensive to build.
The economics of nuclear look better if traditional energy prices stay high. They look better still if the costs of pollution are built into the equation.
If the United States adopts limits on greenhouse emissions, coal plants, for instance, would pay a penalty based on the amount of carbon dioxide they emit.
Then there is the issue of nuclear storage. The United States has spent the past 15 years trying to establish a repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev., to hold the radioactive waste created by nuclear plants. The people of Nevada are bitterly opposed to the idea.
Last summer the opponents got a boost when a court ruled that the federal government failed to prove the storage facility would keep people safe for more than 10,000 years.
On one level the court decision was extreme (Do we know if Nevada will be around in 10,000 years?), but the judges had a point: Nuclear power comes with its own set of risks.
So here's my question: How does that make nuclear power different from any other energy choice?
Oil comes from the volatile Middle East; natural gas is getting harder to find; liquefied natural gas could be a target for terrorists; coal pollutes the air; wind power is great unless you have to look at the ugly turbines; hydropower requires damming up rivers. Each energy option involves tradeoffs and each involves some degree of uncertainty. The future is always hard to see and the energy future is no different.
In investing, people cope with uncertainty by making sure they don't put too many eggs in one basket. The same approach makes sense for energy. The MIT report doesn't beat the drum for the revival of nuclear power. Instead it says this: "The nuclear option should be retained, precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution to future electricity supply."
That sentiment wouldn't fit neatly on a bumper sticker or even in a 30-second television spot. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.
Charles Stein is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at stein@globe.com.
---------------------------
Washington Post
October 24, 2004
In the Battleground States
It's Bear Baiting, Stupid
By Louis Jacobson
This political season the conventional wisdom seems to be that if it isn't the economy, stupid, then it's Iraq and terrorism, stupid. But for a lot of not-so-stupid voters in potentially decisive states, the presidential election could hinge on issues much closer to home.
The media's focus on national themes -- terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care policy, Social Security, abortion and even the legacy of the Vietnam War -- obscures another reality: A local dispute, statewide referendum or popular statewide candidate for another office in an important battleground could determine the outcome of the presidential contest.
That possibility explains the television ads Sen. John Kerry is running in Nevada. In that battleground state, a plan to make Yucca Mountain the site of a nuclear waste depository for the entire country is on the minds of many voters. The long-planned and long-delayed federal site, located an hour or so from bustling Las Vegas, makes many Nevadans nervous -- and President Bush gave the project a big push in his first term after seeming to promise to do otherwise during the 2000 campaign.
Seeking an opening in a tight race, Kerry has made his opposition to Yucca Mountain a prime selling point in the state. In a recent Kerry ad, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says, "I know who stood with our state, and I know that George Bush broke his word as president, pushing ahead with a nuclear dump that's a danger to Nevadans. John Kerry has stood with us. He's fought Yucca in the past, and as president, he'll stop it once and for all."
Yucca Mountain is a long way from Iraq, but a Research 2000 poll taken in August found that 53 percent of Nevada respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that Yucca Mountain is an important issue when choosing between Bush and Kerry. Some Nevada politicos aren't sure how much weight the issue will ultimately have with voters, who have been fighting it for so long that fatigue may be setting in. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, voters in a Las Vegas Review Journal poll taken in September said Yucca Mountain wouldn't make them less likely to back Bush for a second term. But if the Yucca issue sways even a fraction of the state's voters who might otherwise vote for Bush, that could be enough to bring Nevada into Kerry's column.
Other swing states have their own particular concerns. In Oregon, where fire scorched the Siskiyou National Forest in 2002, the candidates have sparred over Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative, which attempts to reduce forest fires by allowing the removal of dead trees and limited logging in areas that were previously protected. In an Oct. 14 stop in southern Oregon, Bush hammered Kerry for opposing the measure, which is broadly supported by the timber industry but viewed skeptically by many environmentalists.
And then there are the old chestnuts of Iowa and West Virginia: ethanol and coal, respectively. In a July visit to Iowa, Vice President Cheney said that he and the president would promote increased use of ethanol, a product grown by an influential bloc of Iowa farmers. Kerry had already done lots of talking about ethanol during the Iowa caucuses, which propelled him to the Democratic nomination.
In West Virginia, both camps have expressed support for "clean coal" technology, a favorite project of voters in the coal-producing state. Bush has also highlighted Kerry's opposition to a 1999 bill introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) that would have overturned a federal-court ruling barring certain kinds of coal mining. Bush and Cheney are trying to paint Kerry as too sympathetic to environmentalists -- a strategy that worked well for the Republican ticket against Al Gore in 2000.
Not all of the local factors in battleground states have to do with policy, though. Personality can count for a lot -- even if it's not the presidential candidates' personalities. Call it "reverse coattails." Sometimes, it's not a surging presidential candidate who pulls lower-level candidates into office behind him; it's the popular local candidate for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives or governor who boosts the fortunes of a lackluster presidential candidate.
Most of this year's reverse-coattails talk concerns Colorado Senate candidate Ken Salazar, a Democrat. Most, though not all, polls in the state have shown Salazar a couple of points ahead of brewing magnate Pete Coors, his Republican opponent. Salazar is considered a political moderate, and his rural background has helped him to make a strong showing in what have been generally safe areas for Republicans. Coors, by contrast, is associated with metropolitan Denver.
And that could conceivably help Kerry, who now trails Bush in statewide polls by about five or six percentage points -- less than the nine-point margin Bush chalked up against Gore in 2000. Some analysts have suggested that Salazar's success might be rubbing off on Kerry -- though no one knows for sure.
Other reverse-coattails have to do with turnout. In Wisconsin, one liberal analyst suggested that the presence of Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin on the ballot in the Madison area could bring more Democrats to the polls and aid Kerry's chances in a state where Bush holds a slight lead. The last time Feingold and Baldwin were on the ballot together, in 1998, Feingold eked out a narrow victory, thanks in part to the strength of Baldwin support among college students and other young voters. (Baldwin is the only openly lesbian member of Congress.) This demographic is especially important in a close race, because young voters and college students generally turn out at lower rates than other voters.
Local ballot issues could also tip the balance. Florida's a perfect example. Florida voters, having experienced the tribulations of 2000, would have been energized to get to the polls in 2004 under any circumstances. But this year's ballot also happens to be chockablock with initiatives that could attract certain kinds of voters to the polls.
Labor unions and other liberal groups secured a spot for a measure to raise the minimum wage to $6.15 and to index it for inflation. Social conservatives want to require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Gov. Jeb Bush is asking voters to repeal a previously passed initiative to create a "bullet train" in the state. Gambling foes and animal welfare advocates are teaming up in an odd-bedfellows alliance against a measure that could lead to the establishment of slot machines at race tracks. And physicians have proposed to cap payouts to medical malpractice lawyers, while the lawyers are proposing two ballot initiatives of their own, including one that bars doctors found guilty of malpractice three times from practicing in the state.
"It was clear from the outset that the race in Florida would be about voter mobilization, especially of infrequent voters," says Susan MacManus, a University of South Florida political scientist. "Some of these measures were designed specifically for that purpose."
A flurry of state ballot initiatives on same-sex marriage could also bring religious conservatives to the polls in key places such as Ohio, Oregon and Michigan. Meanwhile, a ballot measure to ban bear-baiting in another battleground state, Maine, could prompt a backlash by hunters, driving them to vote in larger numbers than usual.
That helps explain why Kerry, with 12 days to go before the election, brought his campaign to a duck blind last week. He wasn't making a point about the war in Iraq or job outsourcing or health benefits. But he must have known that without taking aim at some more parochial interests, he could be firing a lot of blanks.
Author's e-mail: ljacobson@rollcall.com
Louis Jacobson is the deputy editor of Roll Call, where he writes the Out There column, covering political developments in the states.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 23, 2004
Kerry stumps in Nevada again
Candidate touts domestic agenda as beneficial for state
By Sean Whaley
Review-Journal Capital Bureau
CARSON CITY -- In a brief interview after his first campaign stop in Northern Nevada, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Friday he is the better choice for the state's voters, and not just for his opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project.
Kerry said his proposals will help the state's economy, provide better health care, protect senior citizens and allow a terrorism effort that focuses on the real threats to the United States.
"I think I have a much better program on every issue that matters to the state of Nevada," Kerry said. "Nevada depends on tourism, and people have to have money in their pockets to be tourists. The income of Americans has gone down under George Bush. Jobs have gone down under George Bush."
Kerry said Nevada's large senior citizen population should be concerned about reports that President Bush plans to privatize a part of Social Security.
"George Bush is going to blow a hole a mile wide in Social Security," he said. "Investing in the stock market is risky for Social Security. I'm not going to do that."
Also, Kerry said he will make America safer by focusing on the real terrorism threats facing the country, rather than Iraq, where he said no real terrorist threat existed before Bush's decision to invade.
"I will make America safer," he said. "North Korea is more threatening today than it was before. George Bush allowed that to happen. Iran is more threatening with nuclear weapons. George Bush has done nothing to deal with it.
"His foreign policy has been reckless," Kerry said.
The comments came after Kerry spoke for about 50 minutes to a capacity crowd of 12,500 at the Lawlor Events Center on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno.
Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Bush campaign, said Kerry's criticisms of Bush on the economy ring hollow on a day the state reported a 3.9 percent unemployment rate for September.
"The state added 50,000 more payroll jobs last year," she said.
"The president's priorities are the priorities of Nevada," Schmitt said.
Kerry, who left Reno for Pueblo, Colo., after the speech, was introduced by his Vietnam War colleague Jim Rassmann, who mentioned how the Massachusetts senator saved his life in 1969.
"A long time ago, this man saved my life," Rassmann said. "He did it under fire, and he didn't have to. But he did it anyway."
Rassmann said he has long been a Republican but came out for Kerry because "the Republican Party left me behind long ago."
Kerry spoke against plans to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. He said Bush lied when he said sound science would determine whether the nuclear waste repository could be built safely.
"When it comes to Yucca Mountain, George Bush doesn't let the truth get in the way," he said.
Kerry said Yucca Mountain will not be built if he is elected president.
"Not on my watch," he said. "The science doesn't say its safe."
Schmitt said Kerry's stand on Yucca Mountain is only meant to win votes.
"He voted six times to make it easier to store waste at Yucca Mountain," she said. "This is a campaign strategy to woo voters. It's not based in reality. The reality is his record."
Kerry disputed a claim that he plans to start an 8 percent royalty on mining.
"That's wrong, that's not true; I would never do that," he said.
The visit was Kerry's sixth to Nevada, a battleground state with five electoral votes. Kerry will be in Las Vegas again on Tuesday.
About 30 students protested Kerry's visit, holding signs and shouting comments as people lined up to get into the arena.
"We're here to show support for President Bush," said Kriston Whiteside, president of the College Republicans.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 23, 2004
Candidates clash on Medicare
Republican congressman, Democratic challenger spar over drug importation from Canada
By Erin Neff
Review-Journal
Both Congressman Jon Porter and Democratic challenger Tom Gallagher accused the other of lying Friday in the final debate for the 3rd District.
The barbs came during discussion of the Medicare reform bill, which Porter supports and Gallagher opposes. The hour-long debate will air 6 p.m. Sunday on KLAS-TV, Channel 8.
Porter, a first-term Republican, was asked whether he should have disclosed his family insurance business when he voted for the Medicare bill, which permits insurance companies to sell new policies to seniors.
"The hypocrisy is, he's not telling the truth," Porter said of Gallagher.
Porter did not directly discuss whether he should have abstained but said his son does not sell the policies.
"It's not about your son, it's about you," Gallagher said.
Referring to the bill, Porter said he supported reimportation of drugs from Canada.
The provision in the law, which President Bush signed in December, prohibits reimportation unless a separate study determines the drugs can be safe.
Gallagher called the provision "bogus." Seniors, he said, know the law prohibited reimportation.
The exchange featured questions from a panel of television journalists and the candidates.
Gallagher asked Porter why he voted for and later opposed a $1,500 bonus for troops. Porter said he did not want to divert money from permanent pay raises or equipment.
"You're simply not telling the truth," Gallagher said in rebuttal.
The money for the bonuses was to be taken from a fund dealing with the importation of petroleum to Iraq, Gallagher said.
As he has in the past, Porter tried to paint Gallagher as a political opportunist who moved into the district to run for office.
Gallagher, the former chief executive officer of Park Place Entertainment, has lived in Nevada for seven years. He said he lived a few houses away from the district's border and moved when he decided to run.
Porter asked two questions trying to show Gallagher does not understand state issues, one about the Nevada Plan, an education funding measure, and the other about air quality monitoring in Clark County.
"You have to live in the community to see how these things play out," Porter said.
Gallagher laughed at the second question on air quality before mentioning that his work as legal counsel for Sen. John Tunney of California in the 1970s involved environmental policies such as the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.
"I chose Nevada for a reason," Gallagher said. "The fact that you're not born here has nothing to do with it. What matters is, do you understand the values?"
Porter, an Iowa native, said he has lived in Nevada for 26 years, including 20 as an elected official. He was a Boulder City councilman and state senator before winning election to Nevada's new congressional seat in 2002.
Porter, who has called Yucca Mountain the state's most pressing public safety concern, was asked why he supports Bush, who approved the repository.
"The president and I disagree on this issue," Porter said.
But he argued that Democratic nominee John Kerry "started the ball rolling" on Yucca Mountain with his 1987 vote to study the site as the nation's repository.
Gallagher said the Bush administration will try to expedite a congressional change in the radiation standards for waste storage.
"If John Kerry is elected president, he said: 'Not on my watch,' " Gallagher said. "If George Bush is re-elected, they'll go back to the Congress ... They're trying to find another way to fund it."
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 23, 2004
Letter: Bush's promise
To the editor:
President Bush has come to Nevada four times this year. On none of these visits did he permit a reporter to ask him a question. If afforded the opportunity, any reporter in Nevada would inquire about President Bush's failure to keep his promise to base a decision about the Yucca Mountain Project on sound science.
Sen. John Kerry on the other hand, has visited Nevada five times this year. On each visit, he answered questions from reporters, including questions about Yucca Mountain.
Why is it that the Review-Journal, which frequently claims in its editorial pages to be an advocate for the accountability of government officials and the First Amendment, has never taken President Bush to task for failing to answer questions about why he lied to Nevadans about Yucca Mountain? Is it because that might interfere with the Review-Journal's endorsement and partisan support of President Bush?
Reinaldo Salesansky
Henderson
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
October 23, 2004
Kerry tells crowd of 14,000 in Reno 'everything that matters is on the ballot'
Geoff Dornan
Sen. John Kerry told a cheering crowd that filled Lawlor Events Center on Friday the Nov. 2 election is the most important of our lives.
"Everything that matters is on the ballot," he said, listing Social Security, affordable health care and education, among others. "All of our dreams, the character of our country, is on the ballot Nov. 2."
Kerry, who opened the event to all "without a loyalty pledge," told the crowd America can't afford four more years of George Bush. Area residents filled all but a few scattered seats in the auditorium - an estimated 14,000 people, including numerous college students, union members, seniors and veterans.
It was Kerry's sixth trip to Nevada this campaign season, but his first to Reno. He has been in Las Vegas five times and intends to visit there again next week in an effort to ensure he gets Nevada's five electoral votes.
He said Bush is telling the American people he will fix health care, Social Security, the loss of jobs to other countries and make the nation safe. But he said Bush has done none of those things in the past four years.
Instead, he said, Bush dropped the hunt for Osama bin Laden to concentrate on Iraq, opposed extending benefits for unemployed workers, refused to expand the veterans affairs budget to cover all needed benefits, cut after-school programs for children to give the right wing a tax cut and refused to let Medicare negotiate with drug companies.
Kerry said every time Bush had a choice to make, he sided with the rich and powerful instead of the average American.
"What George Bush is promising you is more of the same," he said.
Kerry said he has a long history of keeping his promises. He said that includes his promise to Nevadans to stop Yucca Mountain because it hasn't been proven scientifically safe.
Bush, he charged, "didn't let truth get in the way" when he told Nevadans he would not approve the project unless it met the scientific test.
"Today, billions of dollars later and decades of research later, the truth is - and I tell the truth - the science doesn't say its safe," he said.
"In fact, if you read the reports - which I have done - the scientists have tried to sound the alarm bell again and again and warned people that it is dangerous," Kerry said.
"It doesn't make sense to build a nuclear waste site on top of 33 different earthquake faults, 1,000 feet from our drinking water," he said.
"This administration just turned its back, covered their ears and went about their own way. Nevada knows what George Bush is going to do. You already knew he was going to shove it down your throat," Kerry said.
"Well, not on my watch. It's not going to happen,"
The Bush-Cheney campaign said Kerry was misleading Nevadans about Bush's position in an effort to scare them into supporting his candidacy.
"President Bush has been clear and consistent and forthright with the people of Nevada while John Kerry plays politics with nuclear waste disposal," campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Friday night from Washington D.C.
"This issue requires thoughtful, principled leadership, rather than overt political expediency in an effort to run a one-issue campaign," she told The Associated Press.
Kerry also charged the president and his handlers are spreading a lie that he plans to increase the mining royalty tax 8 percent.
"I'll never do that," he said. "As president, I'm going to work with (U.S. Sen.) Harry Reid to keep mining jobs in Nevada."
He said Bush has focused mostly on "trying to make you believe there's only one issue - terror." He said the president "rushed to war without a plan to win the peace."
As president, Kerry said he would hunt down and capture or kill terrorists before they attack the U.S.
And while focused on terror, he charged that Bush has let his promises on domestic issues fall by the wayside.
"We need a president of the United States who can do more than one thing at the same time," he said. "We need to do the job of standing up and fighting for the middle class here at home."
He promised to "shut the loophole" that lets U.S. companies claim tax breaks while moving jobs overseas. He promised to raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour. He promised a tax cut to the middle class by making the richest Americans pay more. He promised to rebuild relations with America's allies abroad. He promised to raise the tax credit for child care $1,000 and give a $4,000 tuition tax credit to help people pay for college.
He said he will work to make sure everyone can afford health care.
"And we are going to cover every single child in America - day one, automatic," he said.
Kerry also promised not to privatize Social Security, which he said would result in a 30-40 percent cut in benefits for those still in the system.
He will work with Congress to bring the deficit back in line, Kerry said, and "put back in place what George Bush took away - it's called pay as you go."
Outside the events center, about 100 people with free tickets who couldn't fit inside listened to the speech on loud speakers.
About 40 protesters who support President Bush rallied on a hill overlooking the arena, waving signs and chanting "Four More Years." People in line to see Kerry shouted back, "Two More Weeks."
Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at nevadaappeal@sbcglobal.net or 687-8750. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
October 22, 2004
Kerry rallies Reno supporters
Thousands fill Lawlor to see, hear candidate
Anjeanette Damon
Before more than 12,000 supporters in his first visit to Reno, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry renewed his vow to stop nuclear waste from coming to Nevada, pledged to keep the state´s mining industry strong and declared himself to be the choice for America´s middle class.
Kerry´s Reno visit Friday completes his circuit of campaign stops in this battleground state. During one of his five stops in Las Vegas this year, he promised to make it to the Biggest Little City before Election Day on Nov. 2.
“Ladies and gentlemen, Nevada take note: promise made, promise kept,’ he told the screaming crowd that filled Lawlor Events Center. “There´s a reason I tell you that. The reason is there´s a second promise I´ve made to the state of Nevada. It´s about Yucca Mountain, and you can sum it up in four words: not on my watch.’
Playing on one of his campaign´s biggest issues in the Silver State, Kerry accused President Bush of lying about Yucca Mountain and turning his back on science that proves the site isn´t safe to store 77,000 tons of the nation´s most radioactive waste.
“I´m not saying this just because I´m here in Nevada,’ Kerry said. “I´m saying this because this isn´t just a Nevada issue. This is an American issue. I´m saying this because there are 15,000-plus shipments that are going through 44 different states, past schools, past playgrounds, through dangerous routes in an era of terror.’
Republicans accuse Kerry of opposing Yucca Mountain simply to win votes in Nevada, pointing to seven votes he made before 1997 that helped move the project forward.
“It´s yet another example of John Kerry´s willingness to say anything if he thinks it will help him get elected,’ said Tracey Schmitt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokeswoman.
Kerry´s visit drew more people than the fire marshal would allow into the Lawlor Events Center, on the University of Nevada, Reno campus.
It also prompted a small gathering of college Republicans to protest on a hillside outside the event. They shouted on megaphones as people streamed into the arena.
Lines and lines of people stretched around Lawlor Events Center as people waited to get inside, slowed by security checkpoints.
“This does my heart good. I love it,’ said Vicki LoSasso, chairwoman of the Nevada Women´s Lobby.
“Never in my wildest dreams did I expect Democrats to fill Lawlor Events Center,’ said Chris Healy, 48, a Sparks Democrat.
Washoe County is the state´s GOP stronghold with 17,600 more registered Republicans than Democrats. The county hasn´t voted for the Democratic candidate in the past nine presidential elections.
Before launching into his 45-minute stump speech that touched on the Iraq war, terrorism, health care and jobs, Kerry complimented Reno´s scenic beauty, joked about its gambling halls and addressed Yucca Mountain and the state´s mining industry.
Kerry accused Republicans of “distorting’ the facts about his plans for reforming the 1872 Mining Law, saying it is an attempt to scare Nevada voters.
Before Kerry´s visit, the Bush-Cheney campaign accused Kerry of proposing an 8 percent royalty fee for mining public lands — a figure Kerry has never put forth.
“Let me just say clearly to Nevada while I´m here: that´s wrong; that´s not true,’ he said. “As president I´m going to work with (U.S. Sen.) Harry Reid and with your miners to keep mining jobs, to keep people working.’
In an August speech, Kerry said he would raise $600 million by reforming mining regulations, including how much the federal government charges for companies to mine public lands.
U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Reno, said Kerry would not be a friend to Nevada´s second largest industry.
“John Kerry cannot hide from his 20-year voting record in the Senate, where he has established himself as the most anti-mining senator in America,’ he said. “Don´t just take my word on it. Look at his public voting record. It is there for all Nevadans to see.’
Acknowledging he was in a gambling town, Kerry said he always asks what the best bet is when he visits Nevada.
“The best bet: single deck blackjack,’ he said. “Worst bet: Bush health care plan.’
Kerry also asked for a moment of silence to remember Mike Mitchell, a UNR economics professor, and Mike Gervasoni, the assistant coach of the UNR women´s basketball team, who died in separate car crashes this week.
The moment was interrupted by a man who yelled “John Kerry kicks ass.’
“I got a feeling that if Mike were here and he were coaching the team, that is exactly what he´d say,’ Kerry said.
Kerry was joined on stage by his daughter, Vanessa Kerry, and Reid. Jim Rassmann, whom Kerry pulled out of a river in Vietnam under fire, introduced Kerry.
“Long ago, this man saved my life in Vietnam,’ Rassmann said. “He didn´t have to do it. Had he not done it, I would´ve voted for him anyway.’
Kerry also spent time outlining his national campaign message, saying he would “defend this country and fight for the middle class at the same time.’
He accused Bush of misleading the country into the war in Iraq, while disregarding the war on terror and letting Osama bin Laden escape.
“He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace,’ Kerry said.
Kerry said he would make it easier for the middle class to buy health insurance, send their children to college and pay for child care. He proposed raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour.
Schmitt said Kerry isn´t credible when he talks about health care.
“John Kerry can´t talk about making health care more accessible with a straight face when he has not only put a trial lawyer on his ticket, but has opposed medical liability reform time and time again,’ she said. “The president´s much needed leadership on this issue resonates more than Kerry´s attacks.’
And she said Kerry´s criticism of Bush´s economic record won´t resonate in Nevada.
“I´d point out that Nevada has almost 50,000 more payroll jobs than it did a year ago,’ Schmitt said. “Unemployment is at 3.1 percent (in Washoe County). John Kerry would be better served explaining why he thinks tax hikes on small businesses would improve Nevada´s robust economy.’
Republicans also criticized Kerry´s voting record on Yucca Mountain. They point to the seven times he voted against the Nevada delegation on bills that helped to move the project forward. Several of those votes were procedural or were on unrelated bills that carried amendments by the Nevada delegation regarding Yucca Mountain.
One of those votes, however, was in favor of the 1987 “Screw Nevada’ bill, which designated Yucca Mountain as the sole place to study for the nation´s nuclear waste repository.
“He has consistently voted in the past in favor of funding and legislation that moved Yucca Mountain forward,’ said Reno Republican Ty Cobb. “He has had many opportunities in the past to study other sites. In 1987, he voted for it — to single out Nevada.’
Kerry has said he voted in 1987 to study the project. He said the science that has come forward since then has proven Yucca Mountain is not safe. Kerry voted in the 1990s against a plan for interim storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and voted with the Nevada delegation to uphold Gov. Kenny Guinn´s veto of the site in 2002.
“John Kerry has been with me every time I´ve needed him on Yucca Mountain,’ Reid said before Kerry´s speech.
During his 2000 campaign, Bush promised to base his Yucca Mountain decision on sound science. Shortly after his election, he approved the site.
Reporter Sue Voyles contributed to this story.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
October 22, 2004
Q & A with John Kerry
Senator cites stand on mining, Yucca
Anjeanette Damon
U.S. Sen. John Kerry sat down with the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Review-Journal for a short interview after his speech Friday. The following are excerpts from that interview.
How would you raise the $600 million for your parks program out of the mining industry? (Kerry has proposed raising $600 million to improve the country´s national parks by reforming the 1872 Mining Law. Republicans have accused Kerry of proposing an 8 percent royalty fee to mine public lands. Kerry has never proposed that specific figure.)
We have to look at how we are going to go about reforming the mining act. The mining association has said it needs to be updated. The Bush administration said it needs to be updated. What I intend to do is work with the mining association, to work with Harry Reid and to take a look at it. We may not be able to get that amount out of it. We may have to do it through other means, also. But I´m not going to lose jobs and I have no intention of raising it 8 percent. I have no idea where that comes from. I don´t have any percentage in mind, none, at all. What I intend to do is sit down with folks and see what steps we need to take to update this. This is a pretty generally accepted principal that the law needs updating. How you do it is up to being reasonable and finding the common ground.
You obviously made some comments about Yucca Mountain in your speech, but sometimes poll results suggest maybe the public isn´t as concerned in Nevada about that issue as they are about other issues.
I´m just giving a position. I spent three minutes on that. I spent a lot of other time on health care, education and national security, jobs and the other issues. I think I have a better program across the board. Nevada depends on tourism and people have to have money in their pockets to be tourists. The income of Americans has gone down under George Bush. Jobs have gone down under George Bush — 1.6 million jobs lost. I have a better plan for our economy. Number one, I will restore fiscal responsibility. Number two, a lot of folks in Nevada are retired. They depend on social security. George Bush is going to blow a hole a mile wide in social security. It is his plan to privatize it. He has never shown America where he gets $2 trillion to make up the difference of letting people go out and invest in the stock market. Third, a lot of Nevadans don´t have any health care. A lot of them have lost it. The fact is I have a plan to provide affordable health care to Nevadans. Finally I will make America safer. North Korea is more threatening today than it was before. George Bush has allowed that to happen. His foreign policy has been reckless. I think I have a much better program on every issue that matters to Nevada.
What´s your plan if this election goes to the courts?
It´s not going to go to the courts. We are going to win this election and I don´t think it is going to go to the courts. The American people will come out in record numbers and they are going to decide this election. I want to guarantee, that anybody that is worried about voting, we have 10,000 lawyers that are part of the team nationally that are guaranteeing that people are going to vote. That is why I´m very confident, because we put together ahead of time the legal team necessary to guarantee people´s rights to vote. And that´s why I believe it won´t go to the courts.
You´re spending a lot of time out West in this election, what are you going to do in the last few days to convince people in these states that they should go your way with their electoral votes?
I am just going to look people in the eye and tell them the truth. George Bush has the worst jobs records of 70 years and I can do a better job of putting America back to work. And I will restore fiscal responsibility. George Bush has blown it out of the door. The fact is he got rid of the pay-as-you-go rule. He´s built the biggest deficit in American history by giving wealthy Americans the tax breaks. The question for people of Nevada is do you want a president who is always siding with the wealthiest people or do you want somebody who can champion the middle class and fights for fairness, helps kids go to college, helps mothers taking care of their kids with child care, provides health care to Americans. That is the choice in this race.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
October 22, 2004
Kerry declares “Not on my watch;’ says Bush lied about Yucca Mt.
Brendan Riley
RENO, Nev. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday President Bush lied to Nevadans about his Republican administration´s determination to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
If elected, Kerry said he won´t allow it to happen — “and I tell the truth.’
“When it comes to Yucca Mountain, George Bush doesn´t let the truth get in the way,’ Kerry told a capacity crowd of more than 11,000 at the Lawlor Events Center at the Univerity of Nevada, Reno.
The Massachusetts senator said his own position on the waste site planned 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas can be summed up in four words: “Not on my watch.’
“Four years ago, this administration promised the people of Nevada that it wasn´t going to allow Yucca Mountain to go forward if the science didn´t show it was definitively safe. That was a promise,’ Kerry said.
“Today, billions of dollars later, and decades of research later, the truth is — and I tell the truth — the science doesn´t say its safe,’ he said.
“In fact, if you read the reports — which I have done — the scientists have tried to sound the alarm bell again and again and warned people that it is dangerous,’ Kerry said.
“It doesn´t make sense to build a nuclear waste site on top of 33 different earthquake faults, 1,000 feet from our drinking water,’ he said.
“This administration just turned its back, covered their ears and went about their own way. Nevada knows what George Bush is going to do. You already knew he was going to shove it down your throat,’ Kerry said.
“Well, not on my watch. It´s not going to happen,’
Bush campaigned in Las Vegas and Reno last week but did not mention Yucca Mountain.
Kerry said the nuclear waste dump issue is important to all Americans, not just Nevada, because high-level radioactive waste will travel on trains through most of the country.
“You have 55,000-plus shipments that are going to go through 44 different states, past schools, past playgrounds, through dangerous routes in an era of terror,’ he said.
It was Kerry´s sixth trip to Nevada, but his first to Reno, where Republicans outnumber Democrats. His five previous stops were in the heavily Democratic Las Vegas area.
Kerry took the stage with his daughter, Vanessa, sister, Peggy Kerry, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. He kissed a baby, took off his jacket and rolled up his sleeves before beginning a 50-minute speech under a large red, white and blue sign that read, “Nevada, Kerry Country.’
“God, it is good to be here,’ said Kerry, who marveled at the view of the snow-covered Sierra Nevada as his plane landed at Reno-Tahoe International Airport.
“I saw Mt. Rose. I saw Slide Mountain. I saw the snow and said, ‘I´m in God´s country, this is great,´ ’ he said.
“I always check the best bet when I come into Nevada. The best bet — single-deck blackjack. The worst bet, Bush´s health care plan — flu shots,’ he said to cheers.
Outside the events center, about 100 people with free tickets who couldn´t fit inside listened to the speech on loud speakers.
About 40 protesters who support President Bush rallied on a hill overlooking the arena, waving signs and chanting “Four More Years.’ People in line to see Kerry shouted back, “Two More Weeks.’
Three police officers on horse back are kept an eye on the protesters, but no trouble was reported. The critics carried signs that said “More Lies’ and “Flush the Johns’ — a reference to Kerry and his running mate John Edwards.
Jared Townsed, a UNR student from Las Vegas who was among the protesters, said he wished there had been a a bigger turnout among the Bush faithful.
But “we´re able to get our point across,’ he said.
Another protester, UNR student Michelle Blair, said she had no interest in hearing Kerry´s speech.
“I already know what he is going to say — ‘I have a plan,´ ’ she said.
One of about every 20 people in the arena was carrying a sign — “Firefighters for Kerry-Edwards,’ “Laborers for Kerry-Edwards,’ “Women for Kerry,’ “Fighting for us.’ The crowd did the wave while waiting for Kerry´s speech.
Frank Ciccarelli, who traveled from the San Francisco Bay area to see Kerry, said he stood in line for nearly an hour to get in.
“The only thing I want is for John Kerry to be elected and Bush thrown out,’ said Janette Sherman, who came to see Kerry from her home in Truckee, Calif.
Jill Allinson, 16, who recently moved to Reno from Baltimore, was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Don´t whine, vote.’ She said she wanted to see Kerry and was looking forward to voting in the next presidential election.
“I think he is great. I want to hear what he has to say,’ she said.
Associated Press writers Scott Sonner and Tom Gardner contributed to this report.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
October 22, 2004
Open Meeting Law violated
Attorney General Says Officials Erred When Closed Meetings Held in Nye, Lincoln
By Doug McMurdo
PVT
County Commissioners from Nye, Lincoln and Esmeralda counties and representatives from the City of Caliente now understand what regional journalists have known for months: The Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group violated the Nevada Open Meeting Law on at least four occasions since members met for the first time last November.
Deputy Attorney General Neil Rombardo, on behalf of Attorney General Brian Sandoval, has determined the group, which was formed at the request of the Department of Energy to discuss a variety of Yucca Mountain issues, said his opinion is advisory only since more than 120 days have passed since Kent Lauer, the executive director of the Nevada Press Association, alleged the violation.
Rombardo determined the working group was indeed a public body - contrary to what members of the working group stated - through a three-part test that must be met. The working group is a collegial body, meaning the power or authority is equal among members; that the working group is an administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the state or a local government; and that is expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue or makes recommendations to another entity that does.
Commissioners Candice Trummell and Henry Neth are Nye County's representatives.
While Trummell and others have argued the working group did not spend money, Rombardo noted that Lincoln County spent more than $6,000 on consultants and hundreds of dollars on travel expenses for its two commissioners to attend meetings; Nye County uses county staff and facilities to operate the working group. The City of Caliente and Esmeralda County failed to respond to Sandoval's requests for information.
Tellingly, the violation might have never occurred had each county commissioner involved sought out legal advice from their respective district attorneys. That didn't occur. Indeed, members of the working group neglected to seek legal advice even after the Pahrump Valley Times, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and the Las Vegas Sun and private citizens raised the issue.
"The pattern of deception, privacy, exclusion and nondisclosure by the members of (the working group) strongly suggests the level of intent necessary for a criminal violation of the Open Meeting Law," wrote Rombardo in his opinion.
Clearly the group's goal all along was to work in secret. The deputy attorney general cited an April 23 Pahrump Valley Times article in which Trummell was paraphrased: "Commissioner Trummell said with so much scrutiny of the Yucca Mountain Project by Clark County and the State of Nevada, there's certainly something to be said for having strategic meetings in private until a strategy is prepared."
In the same article Caliente Mayor Phillips is quoted, "For the purpose of coordinating this thing (Yucca Mountain) we can get so much done in an informal setting (closed meeting)."
According to Rombardo the comments "indicate a desire by the group to avoid open government as required by the Open Meeting Law."
And while the opinion is advisory in nature and no criminal investigation will be held, members of the group are still on the hook. Each entity must sign a settlement agreement and submit it to the state by today, although Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney Ron Kent said the county had 30 days to sign the agreement.
Terms and conditions mandate the following: The Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group, along with Nye, Lincoln, Esmeralda counties and the City of Caliente, must admit the Open Meeting Law was violated; prior to any new meetings, the working group must agree to "hold as many meetings as necessary to cure its failure to comply ... at these meetings the working group shall reconsider all past items and not consider any new items until all past items have been considered in public.
"The working group agrees to implement procedures to ensure full compliance with the Open Meeting Law."
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
October 22, 2004
Kuver appointed as county representative
By Phillip Gomez
PVT
Walt D. Kuver resigned from the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission and the Federal Impact Advisory Board in order to accept appointment by the Nye County Board of Commissioners as the county's representative on the Southern Nevada Water Authority's advisory committee on water importation to Las Vegas.
Kuver's new position pays $500 per written report, not to exceed $7,500 through the end of next year. His former positions with the county were non-paid. He was appointed to the RPC in mid-July and worked on a volunteer basis to develop the county's master plan and new zoning ordinance. He is a retired electrical engineer.
The Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee is made up of citizens from Clark, Lincoln, White Pine, Esmeralda and Nye counties, Kuver said in an interview. About 30 people, representing area stakeholders on the committee, report to the Southern Nevada Water Authority board of directors.
The committee, represented mostly by Clark County, also includes the anti-Yucca Mountain organization Citizen Alert. The committee meets monthly, and Kuver's job will be to keep the Nye County commissioners informed on a monthly basis about it's activities.
Kuver said the main thing the committee deals with is the water pipeline to be constructed from Lincoln County to Las Vegas, recently worked out in Congress to serve the water needs of the growing metropolis to the south.
The initial meetings will focus on why Las Vegas needs the water, Kuver said, and the last three or four meetings in December 2005 will culminate in a consensus report on the overall project.
---------------------------
New York Times
October 23, 2004
Kerry Vows Fight for Equal Pay for Women and a $7 Wage
By David M. Halbfinger
RENO, Nev., Oct. 22 - Hoping that women's economic anxieties trump their fears of terrorism, Senator John Kerry promised on Friday to fight for equal pay and a minimum-wage increase, more money for education and health coverage for all children.
"Today, for far too many women, the American dream seems a million miles away," Mr. Kerry said, attacking President Bush as out of touch with what really worries women in the workplace and at home.
Most polls show Mr. Kerry has regained a lead over Mr. Bush among women since their debates, but the senator still lags behind where Al Gore stood with women in 2000, and aides say the campaign is taking nothing for granted. They are seeking mobilize members of a core constituency that did not turn out in the numbers Democrats had hoped four years ago.
"Imagine," he said, "if the roughly 38 million women who didn't vote in 2000 came together and said, 'We need a president who's on our side.' "
Mr. Kerry's speech in Milwaukee, which hit themes he will repeat in his radio address on Saturday, was made as Mr. Bush's campaign began broadcasting a new television commercial that tugs at fears of terrorism by depicting a pack of wolves lurking in a forest as a metaphor for a gathering threat.
The main argument of Mr. Bush's campaign, particularly to women, has been that he will protect the country from terrorists and that Mr. Kerry will not.
Mr. Kerry's aides say that security is a threshold issue for women but that Mr. Kerry has already crossed it in the public mind and that domestic issues like employment, health care, Social Security and education will be the ones on which women make their decisions in the polling booths.
Indeed, Mr. Kerry gave a nod to fears of terrorism at the outset of his lengthy speech, saying he would "hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists," but quickly added, "A president has to be able to do more than one thing at the same time."
He played to an entirely different set of concerns as he addressed women who, he said, are "working two jobs, three jobs, just to get by - and that's only counting the jobs they're paid for."
"You worry when you hear a child, a son or daughter, cough in the middle of the night," Mr. Kerry said. "You worry when they go out in the morning just to play, because you can't afford an illness. You can't afford an accident."
"You and your husband worry at the kitchen table after the kids have gone to bed, and when the month's paychecks don't cover all the bills," he added, citing record levels of household debt and personal bankruptcy.
In recent polling, women are dividing their votes much as they did in 2000, when 54 percent of women voted for Mr. Gore and 43 percent for Mr. Bush. In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken last weekend after the third debate, 50 percent of women said they would vote for Mr. Kerry and 41 percent said they would vote for Mr. Bush.
In the fourth of five policy speeches this week that promised a "fresh start for America," Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush had "turned back the clock on equal pay" and was standing in the way of raising the minimum wage and other measures that he said would help millions of women who work outside the home.
He sharply criticized an administration economist who had called the pay gap "phony" and "fiction." Mr. Kerry said that women earned 76 cents on the dollar compared with men and that Mr. Bush had cut or weakened federal programs intended to eliminate that disparity.
"At their jobs and at home, no one in this White House understands the challenges that they face," Mr. Kerry said in Milwaukee with more than 100 Wisconsin women arrayed behind him. "No matter how tough it gets, no one in the White House seems to be listening."
A spokesman for Mr. Bush's campaign, Steve Schmidt, accused Mr. Kerry of hypocrisy for having supported higher taxes on gasoline, Social Security benefits and children and married couples, though he "talks about making life better for women."
"All the campaign camouflage in the world can't obscure Kerry's record of being wrong for American women and their families," Mr. Schmidt said.
Mr. Kerry spoke on women's issues in Wisconsin, where the polls show the race has tightened considerably, before heading to Nevada and Pueblo, Colo. Nevada and Colorado are two states leaning for Mr. Bush but where Mr. Kerry is making a concerted push.
With Caroline Kennedy at his side, Mr. Kerry said he would raise the minimum wage, from $5.15 to $7 an hour, helping nine million women.
"President Bush talks a lot about an ownership society," he said, but on health care, education and the economy, "when it comes to hard-working women, his answer is 'Sorry, you're on your own.' ''
He said Mr. Bush had shortchanged his own public education bills and had "raided the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
Mr. Kerry said, "The Scripture says very clearly, 'Honor thy father and mother,' " and promised never to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age.
In Reno, Mr. Kerry came out strongly against storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada. "You can sum it up in four words," he said. "Not on my watch."
He also denied what he said were accusations by the Bush campaign that he planned to raise by 8 percent the mining royalty on federal lands. Most of Nevada is federal land.
"That's wrong, not true," he said, with Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, nodding approvingly behind him.
---------------------------
Belfast Telegraph
October 23, 2004
Locked out of the Deep South, Kerry sets his sights on South-west desert country
By Andrew Gumbel
John Kerry embarked on a final big push for votes in the South-west yesterday, courting a region that once skewed resolutely conservative but which now represents the Democratic candidate's best hope of making inroads in an otherwise solid block of Bush support stretching from coast to coast.
The Massachusetts senator was due to address a crowd at the University of Nevada in Reno last night - his sixth trip of the campaign to a state representing just five electoral votes - before hopping over to Pueblo, Colorado, for a morning rally with the local Democratic senate candidate, Ken Salazar, and thence to Las Cruces, New Mexico for a big get-out-the-vote push among the area's heavily Latino population.
In all three states, Mr Kerry is locked in a tight battle with George Bush. Winning even one of them could prove crucial in securing a majority in the electoral college. Winning more than one would effectively signal a major shift in US voting patterns, one in which the traditional conservatism of the mountain and desert West would be trumped by new population inflows, and by a regional distaste for the religious fundamentalism of the Bush wing of the Republican Party.
This is a region that Al Gore all but ignored in 2000. He won New Mexico by a hair, came reasonably close but lost in Nevada and hardly contested either Arizona or Colorado.
Instead, the Gore campaign still held out hope that the Democrats could challenge the Republicans' supremacy in the Deep South, not least because their candidate was a southerner himself.
The 2000 race all but erased those hopes, as Vice-President Gore lost lock, stock and barrel across the region, including in Tennessee, his home state. This year, Mr Kerry started out with some hope in North Carolina (home of his running-mate, John Edwards), Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana. As the race has tightened, however, he has stopped travelling to the Deep South and almost entirely pulled his television advertising.
The South-west, by contrast, has been in the Democratic Party's sights for some time, even before Mr Kerry emerged as the presidential nominee. The region has a rapidly changing - and growing - population, thanks to an influx of Latino immigrants and politically diverse pensioners.
New Mexico remains the easiest prize, not least because the state is in Democratic hands under Governor Bill Richardson, a former Clinton administration member. There, however, the politics are trending more conservative as big suburban communities start to mushroom outside Albuquerque, the biggest city, and the idiosyncratic, heavily Latino population starts to look whiter and more mainstream. Most recent polls put Mr Kerry ahead there by just a hair.
Nevada is effectively split between the Las Vegas, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, and the rest of the state, which is deeply conservative thanks to a large Mormon population, which reliably votes Republican. Here, as in so many places in this election, turnout will be key - especially among Las Vegas' union workers, minorities and immigrant service workers.
Democratic Party workers, who waged a registration drive of unprecedented intensity, are hoping these voters will be encouraged by a local ballot initiative on raising the minimum wage.
The Republicans, meanwhile, are hoping they will be outnumbered by more conservative pensioners attracted to Nevada because of its low taxes and golf courses. For a while, the Bush administration's plans to send nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, less than 100 miles from Las Vegas, was a hot campaign issue, but it has subsided largely because of a lack of faith that a President Kerry would do anything different. Most polls suggest President Bush is narrowly ahead.
Colorado is an intriguing new battleground made more intense by the close senate race that is pitting Mr Salazar, a Latino and the state's attorney general, against the beer magnate Pete Coors. Although the state has a large contingent of liberals and environmentalists, concentrated around Denver and Boulder, seat of the University of Colorado, Mr Kerry initially assumed he had no chance here.
Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, especially in the fast-growing suburbs and in cities such as Colorado Springs, where a large military and ex-military population rubs shoulders with the fundamentalist Christian right.
However, polls in early October suddenly showed Mr Kerry pulling ahead of President Bush, at the same time as Mr Salazar was shown to be 10 points ahead of Mr Coors. Both races have tightened considerably since then, and are now tipping modestly in the Republican direction.
Mr Salazar initially chose to keep his distance from the Kerry campaign, figuring he stood a better chance without them, but will now appear at the Pueblo rally alongside the presidential candidate - a sign, perhaps, that both campaigns are in trouble.
The final unknown in the region is Arizona, where a recent poll showed Mr Kerry pulling much closer to the President than expected even though he had pulled his television advertising and apparently given up on the state. The Democrats are waging a furious grassroots campaign, in the hope of winning by stealth and sheer weight of voter numbers.
Their biggest obstacle, however, is low turnout among Latinos, who make up 25 per cent of Arizona's eligible voters but who are notoriously hard to drag to the polls. In 2000, just 18 per cent of them showed up.
---------------------------
Salt Lake Tribune
October 23, 2004
N-plants being relicensed at record rates
Yucca Mountain too small: High amounts of waste turn up the pressure to approve storage facilities such as in Skull Valley
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Since Congress chose Yucca Mountain in 2002 to be the nation's permanent nuclear waste repository, nuclear power plants have been relicensed at an unprecedented rate, an environmental advocacy group reports.
That means more waste will be generated than Yucca can hold - which turns up the fire under Private Fuel Storage's proposal for temporary storage of spent fuel rods on the Skull Valley Goshute reservation, said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group Action Fund.
"These license extensions have the same effect on PFS as on Yucca Mountain: They put more pressure on some of these reactors to move waste off-site sooner rather than later," Wiles said Friday.
The EWG Action Fund claims nuclear power plants will be transformed into long-term waste dumps unless Congress authorizes Yucca Mountain's expansion.
Since that's not likely to happen, and since many electric utilities with nuclear plants are running out of waste storage space, Wiles said putting the waste in the Utah desert would become even more attractive.
Environmental Working Group argues utilities ought to lessen their dependence on nuclear power, especially since the opening of the Nevada waste site is likely to be delayed beyond its 2010 deadline.
Yucca Mountain's statutory limit is 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. Wiles said that DOE estimates that plants now operating will produce 118,000 tons is based on an assumption of 10-year license extensions.
"But the utilities are applying for and getting 20-year extensions," he said.
"In the end, . . . we'll have twice as much waste as can fit in Yucca," Wiles said. "So what's the next best place? Maybe it's Utah. If you've got an above-ground site that's taking the waste, boy, that sure is convenient."
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said some of the utilities in the eight-member consortium backing the Goshute proposal have applied for 20-year license extensions, and others are considering doing so.
"We do think it makes a strong case for an interim facility such as ours. It may even make a case for additional interim facilities or additional repositories," she said.
Scott Burnell, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the commission evaluated extending reactor licenses under the assumption there will be a national waste repository and that dry cask storage at utility sites would operate safely for up to 30 years.
"Having a consolidated facility like PFS would obviously
extend the capacity of what we consider extended storage," Burnell said.
The Energy Department, however, is in an enormous amount of trouble over Yucca Mountain due to Nevada's absolute resistance to the proposal and multiple lawsuits filed to stop it.
DOE also is in the throes of figuring out how to ship the waste across the country. Gary Lanthrum, director of DOE's transportation program, has said Congress' unwillingness to fully fund the Yucca Mountain proposal may ultimately force an overhaul of its entire work plan, which would mean missing the 2010 deadline.
Lanthrum recently revealed another significant problem: The contract between DOE and the utilities doesn't allow the agency to take canistered fuel. Lanthrum has interpreted that to mean DOE is under no obligation to take waste directly from the PFS site, which wouldn't have the capability to repack the canisters to DOE specifications.
That interpretation could negate the premise that PFS is a temporary storage site for waste on its way to Yucca Mountain.
PFS could get its license to begin work on its $3.1 billion, 100-acre facility as early as January.
Dianne Nielsen, executive director of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality, said the state is considering whether to make Lanthrum's declaration the basis of another "contention," a form of objection, with the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, which is considering whether to grant PFS its license.
There is also the possibility that waste sent to PFS might someday have to be returned to the utilities that sent it in the first place.
But Brian O'Connell, spokesman for the National Association of State Regulators, said that wasn't a problem he would worry about.
"The only thing I know is the government has the responsibility to accept and dispose of the waste that is at the reactor sites," O'Connell said. "Whether it is relocated at Skull Valley or somewhere else, they've got to deal with it. The responsibility doesn't go away."
---------------------------
Amarillo Globe News
October 23, 2004
Guest Column: Texas shouldn't waste radioactive waste potential
By Ray Ashley
Opinion
Today there is interest in storing low-level radioactive waste in Texas.
Where will this lead and what benefits can result? How do the potential risks compare with other familiar materials that routinely are brought into or travel through the state?
According to an Oct. 8 Associated Press story, "Texas looks into storing nuclear waste," the firm Waste Control Specialists has an operating non-nuclear hazardous waste storage facility in Andrews County. If it obtains a contract to store millions of pounds of low-level radioactive waste generated during the 1940s, it plans to use that facility.
This material is composed entirely of radioactive uranium tailings left from processing uranium ore for the former nuclear program. This material is classified on a scale with many other familiar hazardous materials that we accept as part of daily life. Many are destined for use in the state (certain chemicals, gasoline, liquid natural gas, to name a few) or pass through to out-of-state destinations.
According to the AP, environmental groups already are opposed, raising some of the same arguments successfully used in their campaign to disallow additional, limited drilling for new oil fields in Alaska. In hindsight, if that drilling had been allowed, perhaps the price being paid today for a barrel of oil wouldn't be $54, and continuing to increase, and low-test gasoline wouldn't be selling for $1.90 per gallon.
Many environmental arguments have been used against construction of a new and improved pipeline to carry oil from Alaska to the contiguous states. One argument was that land to be used for pipeline construction would interfere with continued growth of caribou herds. Thus, a higher priority was given to protecting caribou than satisfying some of t