NRA using Obama's remark about possible renewal of assault weapon ban as rallying point in swing states

The National Rifle Association is using President Obama's Tuesday-night debate reference to a possible reintroduction of an assault weapons ban as a pro-Mitt Romney rallying cry to gun owners in swing states. Dan Freeman of the Houston Chronicle reports, "The NRA has fielded 25 paid organizers deployed to 13 states including battlegrounds that may determine the election's outcome such as Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia and Nevada. In addition, an army of 4,300 volunteers is making hundreds of thousands of phone calls, distributing thousands of fliers and visiting events and places where gun owners congregate, Andrew Arulanandam, NRA director of public affairs said."

Obama, asked about about limits on AK-47 assault rifles, replied, "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally." Then he mentioned the possibility of reinstating the assault-weapon ban that was passed by a Democratic Congress in 1994 but expired in 2004 when the Republicans were in control. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence responded to the NRA challenge: "The president has a lot more to gain by voicing the concerns of the public on this issue than he had to lose. This is a conversation the American public wants to have." (Read more)

Swing-state rural voters prefer Republican Farm Bill

Since the failure of the Republican-led House to pass a Farm Bill before the September 30 deadline, Democrats running for office in rural districts have been using it as ammunition. Whether that makes rural voters pick Democrats on election day is yet to be seen, but in the latest National Rural Assembly and Center for Rural Strategies poll of rural voters in nine swing states, voters preferred the Republican approach over the Democratic one, 61 to 27 percent.

The poll described the Democratic position this way: "Democrats have said allowing the Farm Bill to expire is devastating for rural America. The Farm Bill supports rural development programs, invests in renewable energy industry, and provides an important safety net for farmers and producers. It would especially help those suffering for record drought. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also called food stamps, not only helps feed people, but 14 cents per dollar of the money from this program goes into the pockets of farmers."

It described the Republican position like this: "Republicans have said they want to pass a Farm Bill that is helpful to farmers and rural communities. Eighty percent of the current Farm Bill goes to fund the food stamp program, which is in dire need of reform. The number of people on food stamps has increased by 59 percent under President Obama, and the program is filled with waste and fraud. Many other provisions of the Farm Bill are badly outdated. We need a modern Farm Bill focused on helping farmers."

Voters polled said the Republican approach was closer to their view by a 34-point margin. "We should point out that not many rural voters actually have anything to do with farming," reports Bill Bishop of the Daily Yonder, which is published by the center. Only 7 percent of those polled said they or someone in their family made more than half their income from farming, and 12 percent said they received less than half of it from farming. Eight of 10 said no one in their families made any income from agriculture. (Read more)

Swing-state rural voters prefer Romney by 22 pts.

Mitt Romney is now leading President Obama in rural swing states by a 22-point margin, according to a National Rural Assembly poll released today. Rural voters polled last week said they preferred Romney to Obama by 59 to 37 percent. In a similar poll from September, Romney led by 14 points. The poll questioned voters in rural counties in nine states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. (Daily Yonder photo: Romney speaks in Lebanon, Ohio)

"The poll documents a continuing -- in fact, accelerating -- collapse of support for President Obama among rural voters," Bill Bishop of the Daily Yonder reports. Rural voters were "staunchly Republican" in 2000 and 2004, when George W. Bush won the rural vote by almost 20 points. Obama lost the rural vote in 13 swing states in 2008 by just a little more than 2 percentage points, Bishop writes. North Star Opinion Research's Dan Judy told Bishop the September poll showed Romney was "under-performing" among rural voters, but now that he's surged ahead, Judy said he thinks "it's fair to say his lead among these rural voters is what's helping him in swing states overall."

The poll asked which candidate would do a better job handling a range of issues, from the economy to medicare. "Voters thought Romney would do a better job than Obama in addressing every issue -- often by enormous margins," Bishop reports. Judy told Bishop he expects these margins to stand through the election because rural voters have "innate conservatism" that will push them to vote Republican. (Read more)

Rural areas are more dependent on public radio, TV

In the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney said he would cut federal funding for public broadcasting. Public television and radio outlets, including PBS and National Public Radio, received just $445 million of the 2012 budget, about .014 percent. In The Washington Post, Brad Plumer reflected on the importance of public broadcasting, and argued that if the budget is cut, rural areas would suffer the most.

"The usual arguments in favor of public broadcasting focus on the facts that a) public television and radio are highly educational and b) that this government spending mainly benefits rural areas with few other media options," Plumer writes. The government doesn't actually give money to PBS or NPR, he notes; it gives it to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which parcels out the money based on a formula. A lot of it goes to TV programming, the rest goes to 581 local TV and radio stations across the U.S.

PBS would lose just 15 percent of its budget, and NPR just 2 percent if Congress eliminated the public broadcasting budget. But local stations in many rural areas might be forced to close or drastically cut back their programming because more than 50 percent of their funding comes from the government. Plumer says that would be bad for children in rural areas who have only three options for educational programming: Nick Jr., Disney Jr. and PBS. "For families that can't afford cable, PBS is the only option," Plumer wrote. "The big worry is that an end to government funding would leave pockets of the country without public radio and TV, replaced by commercial stations that are less affordable, more saturated with advertising, and less educational." (Read more)

Coal ash regulation will depend on who gets elected

Despite much controversy coal ash, Congress isn't likely to move on new regulations until after the election, and then action will depend on the priorities of the party controlling the White House, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post reports. The U.S.'s 431 coal-fired power plants produce 140 million tons of ash a year. About 60 percent is stored in landfills, ponds and mines, and evidence suggesting leaks are a problem had been growing. The issue is rural because that's where plants and disposal areas are located. (Photo by Nancy Pierce of The Clog: coal ash pond near Mountain Island Lake, N.C.)

The Environmental Protection Agency gave 45 ponds at 27 locations a "high hazard potential" rating, meaning that if they break or leak, it would likely result in loss of life. Environmental groups in the last month have sued operators of 14 power plants in North Carolina and four in Illinois over coal-ash contamination, and ash-contaminated water at 197 sites in 37 states, according to Earthjustice.

President Obama and Mitt Romney have touted their love of the coal industry, and the idea of coal ash as a hazardous waste creates controversy. Obama's EPA moved toward regulating more strictly, then backed off. If it is officially labeled hazardous, EPA will have direct control over it and new handling procedures on utilities will be implemented, something that would increase utilities' costs. The EPA and environmentalists say new regulations will encourage more utilities to recycle coal ash into concrete and other products, but recycling companies and mining industry officials say this will be less likely if it's labeled as hazardous. (Read more)

4 states have Census count inmates of rural prisons where they lived when convicted; to what effect?

For a myriad of reasons, prisons are more often based in rural areas than in urban settings. And for another set of reasons, those inmates in those prisons have typically been counted by the Census Bureau at their incarceration addresses rather than their last known home addresses. Maybe that shouldn't matter much in elections, because most prisoners can't vote, but some urban lawmakers say it "gives rural areas with prisons more representation than they deserve," Maggie Clark reports for Stateline, the news service of the Pew Center on the States.

This is more relevant than ever since the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the right of states "to adjust census data for redistricting purposes, which could encourage more of them to change their count for the 2020 census," Clark notes. Maryland, New York, Delaware and California have passed laws since 2010 to count prisoners at their last known addresses.

Some wonder if the heavy administrative workload of reworking the system is worth the effort. Some insist that prisoner redistricting will have limited political effect. But others believe that the point is that people should be counted accurately. “Even marginal impact is justice to the individuals in question,” says Justin Levitt, a redistricting expert and associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Much like every vote counts even when single votes rarely decide elections, every bit of representation counts even when people don’t feel the change in boundaries.” (Read more)

Va. not getting full story about coal's influence on presidential race in the state, media critic writes

Coal is at the center of this year's presidential election, with both camps touting their love of the industry and the central Appalachian region where the Obama administration's co-called "war on coal" seems to rage the fiercest. However, news outlets haven't kept up with coverage of just how big a role coal is playing in the race, Tharon Giddens of the Columbia Journalism Review reports from Virginia, like Ohio a swing state where coal can swing votes.

Both candidates have used messages about coal. Mitt Romney ran two ads criticizing President Obama's alleged over-regulation of the industry the day after Alpha Natural Resources announced mine closures and layoffs. He also made a stop in Abingdon in southwestern Virginia, near the coalfield, last week. Obama continuously touts his advocacy for "clean coal" as part of his energy strategy.

"Coal has recently moved to the center of the message war in this swing state," Giddens reports. "The political story around coal in Virginia is rich -- but most of the coverage to date has been less so, and not only because ... most news outlets here aren't doing enough to fact check the ads on the airwaves." Giddens writes that they have largely failed to recognize that while Obama's didn't do well in coal country in 2008, in a tight race, every vote counts. "Coal miners are an eye-catching stand-in for the white working class," and both campaigns are trying to target that demographic, he writes. There's been very little push-back by reporters against "the narrative about regulations forcing layoffs at Alpha," when industry experts say the industry's layoffs are stem mainly from low demand, caused by cheap natural gas and a warm winter, which left big stockpiles of coal.

"The problem is that the context, perspective and expertise on display in some of the stronger opinion pieces has been mostly lacking in the political reporting on coal, whether it’s being done in southwestern Virginia or the state’s metropolitan centers," Giddens reports. "Even setting aside environmental concerns, as the candidates have mostly done while they present themselves as friends to coal, the news coverage hasn’t done enough to dig into the campaigns’ messages, explore coal’s influence on the race, or use this opportunity to explore the story of a changing industry and region." (Read more)

All journalists should take apart those misleading political ads; here's another tool to help you do it

By Al Cross
Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues

With less than a month until the hugely important Election Day for federal, state and local offices, the airwaves are being clogged with commercials from campaigns, party committees, so-called "super PACs" and other outside players, and most of them are playing fast and loose with the truth.

Pointing out lies and misrepresentations is the duty of journalists, including rural journalists. You may think that you need to stick to local coverage, but you should should remember that many if not most of your audience has no easy access to daily newspapers that pick apart the ads for federal and state office -- and that there and many sources from which to glean facts and analysis about ads that are running on your local airwaves. The voters you serve deserve the best possible information, and you are the only source for many of them to get it. Please do not forsake this responsibility.

Previously, we have noted the services FactCheck.org, Politifact.com and The Washington Post's Fact Checker column, which we have found reliable, with only very rare and minor errors. In addition to fact-checking, now there is a service that can help you track the volume and sponsors of ads: Political Ad Sleuth, a searchable database of political ad buys across the nation, as well as a crowd-sourced research tool for journalists. The site has data on where presidential, congressional and issue ads are running and who is paying for them.

The site is based on online ad files from the Federal Communications Commission, which cover the top 50 media markets, plus files uploaded by volunteers in smaller markets. If you are in such a market, you can become one of those volunteers and return the favor. Learn how you can help here.
A tutorial about political ad files and the site itself is here. To contact the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which operates the site, click here.

The swing state vote based on rural unemployment numbers requires state-by-state analysis

The bundle of swing states -- Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida -- include quite a few rural voters. And if, as they tell us, the presidential election will be decided by those states, it might just be a matter of who has jobs there and who doesn't. But you have to look at each state, notes Bill Bishop at the Daily Yonder, because the picture is different every time you cross a state line. "You can see why Obama feels more confident in Iowa, which is doing relatively well. And the President is running behind in North Carolina, in part, no doubt, to the rotten unemployment figures in the state's rural and exurban counties," Bishop writes. "Southern Virginia is doing poorly — and we've seen a lot of attention there from both campaigns. Mitt Romney has been talking about coal and mining jobs, an appeal that must resonate in southern Ohio and southwestern Virginia. Romney has been making similar arguments in rural Colorado, which shows signs of a weak economy. Rural Florida is not doing particularly well, but we haven't seen a response aimed at these rural counties as of yet."

Good pay, independent culture, dislike of Obama make Appalachian coal miners 'proud to be scabs'

"As recently as the 1980s, plenty of coalfield residents thought Big Coal was the problem. But these days, in . . . Central Appalachia — southern West Virginia, southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky and eastern Tennessee — coal mining is overwhelmingly popular, despite well-documented risks to workers’ health and community safety," reports Gabriel Schwartzman of In These Times, a liberal, labor-oriented managzine. (Photo by Schwartzman: Supervisory miner gets coffee before work)

Schwartzman spent this summer in the region trying to determine why the previous Democratic and union stronghold has turned so sharply to the right, and doesn't mince words in presenting his conclusion: "At $108,000 a year, nothing in Appalachia compares to miners' wages," he writes. Those wage increases are linked to increased mechanization and smaller workforces, and have changed the political and financial nature of that workforce, he reports. One miner in Pike County, Kentucky, told him he would lose everything if "coal was shut down" because no job in the region could pay him as much.

The union battles for higher wages, better safety and benefits of 30 years ago were largely lost, ultimately ending with the United Mine Workers of America abandoning strikes, Schwartzman writes. Companies raised wages without unions, but cut many jobs with increased mechanization. A major unionized company in the region, Patriot Coal, is now bankrupt and unable to pay miners' pensions.

Miners with jobs told Schwartzman the non-union life is good. "We are scabs. We're proud to be scabs," one surface miner at Camp Branch mine in West Virginia told him. They are loyal to their companies, and that loyalty extends to families, friends and businesses supported by coal miners, Schwartzman reports. But an Energy Information Administration forecast of a 58 percent decline in Central Appalachian coal production by 2035 is reason for many to worry. Though the current decline is being caused mainly by competition from cheap natural gas and the decreased viability of Appalachian coal, miners tend to believe increased environmental regulation is the cause.

Schwartzman reports intimidation and threats received by those who advocate for safer mining practices or oppose mountaintop-removal mining. "Social media is used as a mobilizing tool against 'tree huggers,'" Schwartzman reports. "Aside from calling rallies and protests, post like this August 6 one appear regularly on Citizens for Coal's Facebook page: 'Just saw a post saying tree hugger in Gilbert eating at Wallys restaurant.'"

Many miners expressed to Schwartzman the need to vote out President Obama, even though his administration increased mine safety inspections, probably reducing miner injuries; increased health care for black-lung victims, and increased investments in clean-coal technology. Schwartzman writes that coal companies stir up anti-Obama rhetoric, but the Christian right and the National Rifle Association also play a role. "Those forces play upon values of autonomy and independence that run deep here," Schwartzman writes. "For 150 years, these values have helped Appalachians survive outsiders exploiting their mountain resources. Now those values have become aligned with out-of-state coal companies against environmentalists and liberals." (Read more)

Neither party has supported policies that will help the coal miner, Betty Dotson-Lewis writes for the Daily Yonder.

Did a pastor in your area endorse a candidate from the pulpit Sunday? It's a national story

In a move that could put their tax-exempt status at risk and result in fines, an estimated 1,500 pastors nationwide endorsed presidential candidates Sunday. The move was a challenge to the law prohibiting political endorsements by religious and other tax-exempt organizations, policed by the Internal Revenue Service. (Bloomberg News photo)

The goal of "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" was "to defy this rule and prompt the IRS to take action against a church that could become the basis for a court case to test whether the amendment infringes on constitutional rights to free religious and political speech," reported Jennifer Hawes of The Post and Courier in Charleston, S.C. The event was first organized four years ago by the Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom. All participants pledged to film their sermons and send them to the IRS.

Rev. Steven Baines, religious outreach director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told Hawes the political action "opens the door to politicizing our pulpits." The risk is that churches and pastors could become political fronts, he said. "They have freedom of speech. They can preach about their values, and we encourage pastors to preach about their values. But they cannot relate those to a particular candidate or party."

Participating pastors said they were taking part because their messages shouldn't be filtered through the IRS. But the average voter doesn't want pastors politicizing their sermons, according to a decade's worth of Pew Research Center polls, Hawes reported. In a July survey, 66 percent of people polled said churches and other places of worship should not endorse candidates. Even 90 percent of Protestant pastors polled in a May LifeWay survey said they shouldn't endorse from the pulpit. (Read more)

Presidential candidates don't focus on rural issues

"As they campaign, presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pretty much ignore rural-specific issues," even though they have plenty of opportunity to focus on those issues, Don Davis of the Grand Forks Herald reports, noting that some major swing states that are frequent stops on campaign trails are "heavy on agriculture."

The House Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, told Davis that the gist of each candidate's stance on agriculture is this: Mitt Romney favors fewer regulations, as do many rural residents; Obama is better at supporting the Farm Bill, which includes disaster relief for farmers and funding for rural development projects. University of North Dakota economics professor David Flynn told Davis rural people are "'forced' to back the candidate of their favorite parties ... because neither delivers enough information for them to make good decisions."

"Neither candidate is laying out any specifics regarding rural-specific policies, even the consequences of other policy ideas such as energy on rural economies," Flynn said. "There is no attention being paid to it. At some level, it is a disservice." Ed Schafer, former agriculture secretary and a member of Romney's Agriculture Advisory Team, said the candidates miss an opportunity to talk about the strength of U.S. farming when they don't focus on rural issues. Obama focuses on renewable energy when talking farm issues, but other parts of the farm-sector "can't get an ear anywhere," Schafer said.

"Rural America is not on the front burner for one main reason: votes," Davis writes. Center for Rural Strategies President Dee Davis said the issues facing rural America are complex and not easy to solve, and candidates know they get most of their votes from urban areas. (Read more)

Presidential candidates talk policy in Farm Bureau survey, but don't fully answer some questions

The answers are in to the American Farm Bureau Federation presidential candidate questionnaire. In it, candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama give their views on several issues, including energy, environment and farm policy, with all questions revolving around agriculture.

Here are excerpts from the extensive questionnaire. The full-length version is available here. 

AFBF: Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry and volatile prices significantly affect the cost of growing crops. What policies will you support to meet our energy needs and strengthen energy security? What role do you see for agricultural-based biofuels in the nation’s energy supply?

Obama: U.S. biofuel production is at its highest level in history. Last year, rural America produced enough renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel to meet roughly 8 percent of our needs, helping us increase our energy independence to its highest level in 20 years. We are increasing the level of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline, and the new Renewable Fuel Standard helped boost biodiesel production to nearly 1 billion gallons in 2011, supporting 39,000 jobs.

Romney: I have a vision for an America that is an energy superpower, rapidly increasing our own production and partnering with our allies, Canada and Mexico, to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. . . . America’s energy resources can be a long-term competitive advantage for American agriculture and their development is key to the success of the industry.

AFBF: A new Farm Bill will be enacted and implemented over the next four years during a time of significant evolution in agriculture. What policy and risk management tools do you propose to ensure that agriculture is a profitable, competitive and viable industry? 

Obama: I understand the need for a strong farm safety net. That’s why I increased the availability of crop insurance and emergency disaster assistance to help over 590,000 farmers and ranchers keep their farms in business after natural disasters and crop loss. My administration expanded farm credit to help more than 100,000 farmers struggling during the financial crisis to keep their family farms and provide for their families. And as farmers continue to go through hard times because of this drought, we are expanding access to low-interest loans, encouraging insurance companies to extend payment deadlines and opening new lands for livestock farmers to graze their herds. And I know that any Farm Bill passed this year . . . needs to have adequate protections for America’s farmers. That’s why I have called for maintaining a strong crop insurance program and an extended disaster assistance program.  . . . Instead of making farmers pay more for crop insurance, we will do it by cutting subsidies to crop insurance companies and better targeting conservation funding.

Romney:  I support passage of a strong Farm Bill that provides the appropriate risk-management tools that will work for farmers and ranchers throughout the country. In the near term, my immediate priority should be given to enacting disaster relief for those not traditionally covered by crop insurance as this year’s drought has worsened. . . .  Other nations subsidize their farmers, so we must be careful not to unilaterally change our policies in a way that would disadvantage agriculture here in our country. In addition, we want to make sure that we don’t ever find ourselves in a circumstance where we depend on foreign nations for our food the way we do with energy. Ultimately, it is in everyone’s interest is achieve a level playing field on which American farmers can compete.

AFBF: U.S. agriculture has a long history of relying on temporary workers to help plant and harvest crops, tend orchards and manage livestock. What would you do to solve agriculture’s labor shortage problem? 

Obama: We must design a system that provides legal channels for U.S. employers to hire needed foreign workers. This system must protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers and only be used when U.S. workers are not available. I have called on Congress to pass and implement the AgJOBS Act, which allows farmers to hire the workers they rely on, and provides a path to citizenship for those workers. But we cannot wait for Congress to act, which is why my administration is already taking action to improve the existing system for temporary agricultural workers. We are also standing up a new Office on Farmworker Opportunities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the first office for farmer workers in the agency’s history.

Romney: Our current system for issuing visas to temporary, seasonal workers is broken. Too often, harvest or tourist season passes before temporary worker visas are approved. Indeed, in 2006 and 2007, 43 percent of all applications for temporary agricultural workers were not processed on time. As president, I will make the system for bringing in temporary agricultural workers and other seasonal workers functional for both employers and workers ... A legal immigration system that works will provide a lawful alternative to workers who would otherwise enter illegally and employers who face the choice of either reducing operations or turning to illegal labor to address labor shortage problems. 

Makers of guns and ammo see very different scenarios for sales, depending on result of election

A shop in Sidney, Neb. (John Gress, NYT, 2008)

There haven't been any substantial changes to gun-control laws under President Obama, and no attempts for any by his administration, but outdoor retailers and gun makers are anticipating a bump like the one they saw in the sales of 2008 if he is re-elected in November, reports Shelly Banjo of The Wall Street Journal.

However, if Gov. Mitt Romney ousts Obama, outdoor stores like Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops, and manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Olin Corp., the maker of Winchester guns and ammunition, see a whole different world of retail. "If Mitt Romney is elected, there's no perceived threat on the freedom to own guns, people might decide to spend disposable income on things like outerwear instead," said Joe Arterburn, a Cabela's spokesman.

Banjo reports that "nearly 12 million background checks for gun sales took place in the U.S. this year through Aug. 31, up 56 percent from the same period in 2008, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Customers must undergo background checks before buying firearms from federally licensed sellers. Collections of federal excise taxes on the sale of new firearms and ammunition, a proxy for gun sales, rose to $453 million in 2009, a 45 percent jump from the year before. That's a significant surge compared with the average 6 percent annual increase reported by the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau from 1993 to 2008."

"Businesses are trying to plan, order inventory and staff stores, and you have this event coming down that could significantly impact sales," said Wells Fargo analyst Matt Nemer. The stores are simply responding. And consumers are responding to National Rifle Association campaign-related ads, which warn voters of increased gun regulations if President Obama is re-elected. Adam Fetcher, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, defended the president's policies. "President Obama's record makes clear that he supports and respects the Second Amendment and the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and we'll continue to fight back against any attempts to mislead voters," he said. The Romney campaign declined to comment to the Journal. (Read more)

Coal plays role in election, largely because of Ohio

Romney and Ohio miners (Getty Images)

Coal has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail as "Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have wholeheartedly embraced" it, "despite past statements from Romney and Vice President Joe Biden that pollution from coal-fired power plants kills people," reports Sean Cockerham of McClatchy Newspapers. The issue is mostly become a big one because "the coal-producing state of Ohio is among a handful that are expected to decide the election."

Ohio is ranked 10th in coal production and gets 86 percent of its electricity from coal, and "is among the most crucial prizes in the presidential campaign," Cockerham writes. Virginia and Colorado are also significant coal producers and "key battleground" states. There's also a lot of talk about what a Romney presidency could mean for the industry in the top coal-producing states: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Romney is telling voters that the Obama administration is waging a "war on coal," the battle cry of many state and federal lawmakers from coal-producing states. He's promised to reverse Environmental Protection Agency regulations if elected, and recently attended a political rally at an Ohio underground coal mine. Obama has played up coal differently, suggesting the country should invest in "clean coal" technologies. His campaign has circulated radio ads in Ohio "hammering on that theme and portraying Romney as the one who's really anti-coal," Cockerham reports. (Read more)

Video aims to get more rural Native Americans registered to vote and to the polls

There's always a push to get more youth involved in presidential elections, but there may be a different angle in the concerted effort by College Horizons, a nonprofit organization focused on the higher education of Native American youth. Aura Bogado of The Nation reports that the magazine's newest community journalist, Hillary Abe, has produced a video in Northern Arizona "geared towards mobilizing rural Native youth to vote."

It's perhaps a noble effort, given that 34 percent of Native Americans aged 18 or older in 2008, more than 1 million, did not cast a ballot. Native Vote 2012, a website geared toward getting youth to register, claims that "the Native vote can have a game changing impact on elections at the local, state and federal level, and that's why in 2012 we are working tirelessly to turn out the largest Native note ever."

Romney would give states control over drilling on federal land, provide less support for renewable energy

Romney talks energy in Hobbs, N.M.
(NYT photo by Jim Wilson)

Mitt Romney proposed an end to a century of federal control over oil and gas drilling and coal mining on government land Thursday, in an energy plan that also calls for less support for renewable energy.

"The federal government owns about 28 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. But as of March 2012, only about 37 million acres were under lease for oil and gas operations, of which about 16.3 million acres have active oil and gas production or exploration, according to the Interior Department," Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss of The New York Times write. "Under President Obama, officials in Washington have played a bigger role in drilling and mining decisions on federal lands in the states, and such involvement rankles many residents and energy executives, who prefer the usually lighter touch of local officials."

"The Romney campaign acknowledged that such a significant policy change would require the approval of Congress, the Times reports. "Getting such legislation passed, even if Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, would be very difficult, given certain opposition by Democrats and perhaps even some Republicans."  (Read more)

The National Journal reported month that some farmers are uneasy with the GOP ticket’s "opposition to renewable-energy policies that have helped them economically." Romney opposes a wind-energy tax credit "that has helped farmers bring in thousands of dollars in extra income by leasing their land to wind producers." His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., opposes the mandate for a certain amount of ethanol production, which has driven up demand — and probably prices — for corn. "Romney stands by his support of the ethanol mandate," but "Ryan’s record of full-throated opposition to it rubs corn and crop farmers the wrong way," Coral Davenport writes. "In addition, Ryan’s budget roadmap proposes deep cuts in renewable-energy and nutrition programs that help farmers." (Read more)

Rural matters a lot in election, liberal columnist says

It's all politics at the Iowa State Fair in this presidential election year, as it has been for decades. Presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan visited the fair last week, but left John Nichols of The Capital Times in Madison, Wis., wondering what he was doing there after refusing to answer questions about the epic drought that's devastating much of the Midwest.

Nichols suggests Ryan won't talk farm policy because farm states would likely turn against him, Mitt Romney and possibly Republican congressional candidates. Iowa, Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin "have vast rural regions and long histories of voting with an eye toward farm, food and small-town issues," Nichols writes. But in 2010, rural regions "swung hard to the right," making two-thirds of all U.S. House gains by Republicans come from 125 of the most rural districts.

"Rural matters, a lot, in 2012," Nichols concludes. "Control of the Senate will be determined by contests in states such as Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin. To retake the House, Democrats must win back a substantial number of the 39 rural districts that shifted to Republicans in 2010." (Read more)

UMWA plans no endorsement in presidential race

The United Mine Workers of America does not plan to endorse either presidential candidate in the upcoming election, something that has not happened in memory, Amy Harder of the National Journal reports.

The vice president of the UMWA's International Executive Board, Mike Caputo, right, told Harder that he wanted the organization to stay out of the fray. "I don't think quite frankly that coalfield folks are crazy about either candidate," he said. Obama and presumptive Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, are circulating ads and making stops in swing states with coal mines, such as Ohio and Virginia, to convince residents that they support the industry, Harder writes. Caputo said it's "unusual" for the UMWA to pass on presidential candidate endorsement. The organization hasn't officially completed its endorsement selection decisions, but expects to by mid-September; it had endorsed Obama by May in 2008.

"Politically, the Environmental Protection Agency is the culprit for the coal industry's woes," Harder writes, and this has influenced UMWA member's decisions on endorsement. Caputo said new mercury emission regulations were first introduced under George H.W. Bush, but "whoever is in charge is going to get blamed." Labor unions traditionally side with Democratic candidates, but the UMWA "has been ranting more about Obama for much of 2012," Harder writes, perhaps peaking with UMWA President Cecil Roberts' description of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's actions on regulation as terroristic. (Read more)

ProPublica publishes a guide to voter-ID laws; booklet shows possible difficulty of getting IDs

The nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news service ProPublica has published a guide to voter-identification laws, which have been passed in more than 30 states and could have an impact on this year's elections for offices from president to school board. To read it, click here.

UPDATE, July 24: The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University law school has just published a booklet, The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification, which has maps illustrating how difficult it might be for many rural residents without a government-issued photo ID to obtain one.

This map of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia (click on image for larger version) shows that in most areas with the greatest concentrations of rural black voters, no state driver’s license offices are open more than two days per week. The figure also shows that many of these states’ part-time offices are located in the areas with the highest concentrations of black voters. The crosshatched areas outline the 13 contiguous Black Belt counties in Mississippi, the 11 contiguous counties in Alabama, and the 21 in Georgia where all state driver’s license offices are open two days per week or less.