As to Phifer, one seeking a Congressional seat should show some form of skill besides kissing mining-money hindquarters:
Have you got that, Metsa, Stauber? You stake your position, you are buying the consequences. Many respect wilderness and fear its impairment. Wrongful impairment, maximizing profit at public sufferance is a short-term view toward a planet still around when each of us has passed. Respect future generations.
______________UPDATE____________
As best as things are understood here, Stauber and Metsa are gung-ho mining tools, while Phifer's position is that special federal level intrusions by Congressional Reps are inappropriate where the position at the State level remains in question. In light of such lip-service as Republicans have too often voiced over "states rights" it is strange to see Stauber ignoring that question in his gung-ho and damn the consequences enthusiasms.
The March 8 Timberjay did report:
Across the state, the survey found that fully 91 percent of self-identified DFLers are opposed to sulfide mines near the Boundary Waters. Even within the Eighth Congressional District, 77 percent of DFLers said they were opposed to sulfide mining near the wilderness, and 61 percent indicated strong opposition.
There are a couple ramifications from this kind of sentiment. Number one, any DFLer who is seen as strongly supporting the Twin Metals project, near Ely, is likely to face an uphill battle in any party endorsement fight over the Eighth District seat. There’s a reason that Nolan bowed out three days after the precinct caucuses— challenger Leah Phifer had done remarkably well on caucus night, even against a sitting member of Congress. As this latest polling suggests, Nolan’s aggressive actions to advance the Twin Metals project had left him far out on a political limb, particularly with his own party’s base where opposition to a project like Twin Metals is vehement. Phifer, who hasn’t come out in opposition to sulfide mining (at least at this point) mainly faulted Nolan for trying to short-circuit the process.
Even with an expected Democratic surge in this fall’s election, Nolan was in trouble and he almost certainly knew it.
For those who still doubt the changing nature of the sentiment on this issue, consider the caucus results in the gubernatorial race, where Rebecca Otto, the only DFLer in the race to announce her firm opposition to sulfide mining, won handily in the Eighth District. In the Third Senate District, which encompasses Koochiching, northern St. Louis, Lake, and Cook counties, Otto won more votes in the caucus night straw poll than the five other DFL candidates combined.
And before you dismiss those results as representing just a handful of DFLers, it’s worth noting that the DFL saw record caucus turnout across the state, with nearly 4,000 DFLers turning out in the Eighth. Besides, the people who turn out at the caucuses are often the same people who donate money, door knock, and engage in the ground-level grunt work of the campaign. In the DFL, those folks are feeling very passionate in their opposition to sulfide mining right now.
[emphasis added] See a comparable concern for federal-level muscle flexing being promoted by Congress critters in an editorial by Rep. McCollum in The Hill.
Moreover, as early as October of last year the Phifer campaign site at
https://www.phiferforcongress.com/issues-1/environment-clean-energy
clearly stated, in context:
Leah believes politicians should not use their legislative power to place their thumbs on the scales of these important projects, as it prevents the regulatory process from working as intended and erodes our system of due process. She will fight to preserve Minnesotan's trust in our procedural systems, strengthen our environmental regulations and work to build a strong, sustainable economy for many years to come.
Without names being named, Emmer and Nolan seemingly had placed "thumbs on the scales" in ways Phifer noted as against judicial powers and due process. She was correct about it then, and it remains so.
People too often let second-hand rhetoric define outlooks without carefully considering first-person statements.
A prove it safe or don't do it unwinding in-state and judicially stands unresolved, and who but zealots with agendas would claim time is wasting, in order to short circuit getting things fully explored and duly resolved? From here it appears that Metsa and Stauber are showing such zealotry, and Stauber in doing so stands against all repeatedly voiced Republican "states rights" positioning in the past. "States rights" is either a true belief or a convenience, but not interchangeable one to the other as the wind blows.
FURTHER: In light of the fact that impacts of bad decisions would be local to the state [and possibly bordering Canadian locales] the conservative position would be to not do the mining unless both the state opinion and the federal opinion were together favorable. Environmental harms can be irreversible, and to lessen chances of error, both levels of government should be required to give a stamp of approval before any breaking of ground could happen. Ontario and Canada, to the extent their environment is at risk, should also be heard from, even with the mining in question being wholly within U.S. bounds. AND - know that as the opinion here, not attributed here to Phifer or anyone else.
FURTHER: Same Timberjay item quoted earlier; closing paragraphs:
And before you suggest that opposition to sulfide mining near the BW is confined to DFLers, the survey found that 69 percent of independents and even a plurality of 45 percent of Republicans oppose it as well. From a political standpoint, these numbers are toxic.
These results also suggest that the public isn’t buying the constant refrain that we hear from supporters of sulfide mining— namely that opponents reject all forms of mining, even taconite.
Polls released within the last year show continued strong support in Minnesota for the taconite industry— and that’s true across the political spectrum. What this shows is that as people learn more about the issue, they are recognizing the higher level of risk posed by sulfide mining, and its potential to impact prized Minnesota resources, like clean water in the North Country.
Claims that opposition to sulfide mining represents an attack on the Iron Range’s way of life are simply hyperbolic. The Iron Range’s way of life centers on taconite mining, and support for that industry remains strong in Minnesota.
As for copper-nickel mining, it appears Minnesotans are increasingly skeptical.
That thing about "an attack on the Iron Range's way of life"? It would only be a true attack if that way of life were to lie about what's at risk. Doing a risk/benefit analysis, for the public aside from mining firm intended profits, the expectation here is a handful of short-term jobs against a poisoning of lands and waters of an unprecedented scale and duration. At a guess. Possibly as some suggest irreparable harm if the ore is not simply left where it is, undisturbed. Short term and long term are separate things. Just as sulfide mining risks are wholly separate from existing taconite mining costs and benefits.