My newspaper column on March 11 pointed out that Senator Heidi Heitkamp has a major political problem.
She campaigns in North Dakota as a stout supporter of North Dakota’s biggest industries – oil, coal, and agriculture – but supports a national candidate who espouses policies which would be devastating for those industries.
Hillary Clinton, who not only has Heitkamp’s endorsement but has accepted thousands in contributions from her political action committee, has said she’d effectively ban fracking.
“By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she told a debate audience earlier this month.
Clinton also opposes the Keystone pipeline, supports a moratorium on oil and coal development on federal land, and of late has been talking about how she’s going to “put a lot of coal miners out of work.”
These are all inconvenient facts for Heitkamp and North Dakota Democrats. They hate it when you bring this stuff up. Case in point, this letter to the editor griping about my column which brought this stuff up.
“Heitkamp, a Democrat, is a vociferous supporter of fracking, Kent Rogne writes. “Port is well aware of that fact.”
I am aware of that fact. That’s the point. Heitkamp says she supports fracking, but is supporting someone for President of the United States who is promising to regulate fracking out of existence.
North Dakota Democrats say they aren’t anti-oil and anti-coal and anti-agriculture, yet nationally North Dakotans have to fight Democrat politicians and Democrat-appointed judges to hold off policies which are inherently detrimental to those industries.
I realize that for North Dakota Democrats the shift of national Democrats to the far left has been politically inconvenient, but that’s not my fault.
Don’t shoot the messenger.