37
   

McCain is blowing his election chances.

 
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 01:53 pm
McCain's Michigan Melt-Down Madness
by Harvey Wasserman
Leave it to John McCain to pick the site of a horrific atomic meltdown to symbolize his push for nuke power.

McCain says he wants at least 45 more US reactors as part of his "do everything" campaign for American energy independence. Apparently that strategy does not include inflating car tires, long known as one of the easiest, cheapest and most reliable ways to significantly improve auto gas mileage. McCain had only ridicule for Barack Obama's ideas to fight waste in our energy economy.

Indeed, the term "efficiency" has no apparent place in the McBush lexicon. The "drill drill drill" mantra speaks only of production, a "supply side" Reaganomic approach to a problem whose fastest solution is to cut back on demand. As if turning off lights in empty rooms or making cars run cleaner is somehow an affront to American manhood, more production is the one and only idea in McCain's energy plan.

Thus it was fitting he chose Monroe, Michigan for a nuke-powered energy push. The town's central square hosts a statue honoring General George Armstrong Custer, wiped out by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse at the Little Big Horn in the summer of 1876.

More important was the melt-down at Monroe's Fermi Unit I on October 5, ninety years later.

Fermi I was a sodium-cooled fast-breeder. Its promise was not only electricity "too cheap to meter," but a fuel system that would magically generate more than it used. This astonishing fantasy was part of a government sponsored "Peaceful Atom" push to paste a happy face on the nuclear weapons industry.

Fermi I was key in a number of ways. Detroit Edison's legendary boss, Walker Sisler, told the feds he would be a prime nuke booster. But like the rest of the nation's utility execs, he demanded protection against the monstrous liability that could come with a major melt-down.

So in 1957, before the "inherently safe" Fermi I was built, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, shielding reactor owners from the billions in lawsuits that would follow a catastrophe. Since they believed it would be a short time before private insurers stepped in, the bill was only good for 15 years. Since then, it has been constantly renewed. Today the prospective builders of new reactors demand this same federal insurance protection. So the "temporary" acknowledgement that private insurers won't touch atomic reactors is now a permanent shield for this "safe" technology.

Fermi I was subjected to the first major legal challenge to reactor construction by the United Auto Workers legendary lawyer Leo Goodman. The UAW took Edison all the way to the Supreme Court, where it lost 7-2. In a benchmark minority decision, Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black warned that nuclear power involved "a lighthearted approach to the most awesome, the most deadly, the most dangerous process that man has ever conceived."

In 1966 a blockage occurred in the $100 million plant's cooling system. Because it carried highly volatile liquid sodium, which can explode when exposed to air, all of southeastern Michigan stood at the brink of an unthinkable catastrophe. Police officials seriously debated evacuating Detroit, just forty miles north.

But an explosion at Fermi would have permanently irradiated the Great Lakes and a gigantic area of land stretching hundreds of miles in all directions. Countless thousands of people would have died from both short-term and long-term radiation sickness. One actual victim from the releases that did occur may have been then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who spoke in Monroe the day after the accident, and later died of cancer.

The public was kept totally in the dark. "

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/10/10911/
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 02:10 pm
Ah, anti-nuke propaganda camoflaged as anti-McCain propaganda.

Those sodium-cooled reactors are kinda like a buggy whip factory, though.

3rd- and 4th-generation reactors won't melt down even if you walk away for 50 years.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 02:13 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Ah, anti-nuke propaganda camoflaged as anti-McCain propaganda.

Those sodium-cooled reactors are kinda like a buggy whip factory, though.

3rd- and 4th-generation reactors won't melt down even if you walk away for 50 years.


Is the government insurance bailout still in place, DD?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 02:13 pm
It is your views.Though I respect your views I beg to uphold my views.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 05:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo,
Current electoral college projects show only a 3 vote difference in the state polls....momentum for McCain is building and should overtake Obama just before he gets his bump in the polls due to the convention. Partly I expect a result of his strong showing in Rick Warren's Civil Forum, but also I expect, in the recognition that Obama is less about change and instead simply your everday liberal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 05:07 pm
It's an interesting dilemma for Obama, because most voters want to vote democratic, but Obama just isn't cutting it with the voters. It's for Obama to lose, and he's doing it in spades.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 05:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI,
I agree that Obama's blowing it, but it's not "because most voters want to vote democratic"...it's because voters want change and Obama is proving that he only has the rhetoric but not the past-history, nor the will, nor even the capacity to offer change.

And if there is no possibility of change, then it's best to go with leadership coupled with extensive experience, even if it means continued status quo.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 05:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
lol, he is still leading in the polls; that's 'not cutting it?'

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  3  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 05:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo wrote:
lol, he is still leading in the polls; that's 'not cutting it?'

He leads this moment, but the wind's behind McCain's back. McCain will be leading in next few days, I predict.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 05:45 pm
@slkshock7,
Well, we'll see - but I predict you are wrong. McCain has not been able to get above 45% consistently for the entire election. I don't see evidence that he is really climbing above it now - just that his attacks are driving Obama down a little.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 04:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
Whew man - think you might be overstating a wee mite?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 08:41 pm
Waiting for Convention bumps...

Actually, I can't shake the feeling that Hillary and Co have something very surprising up their sleeves...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 08:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Obama just isn't cutting it with the voters. It's for Obama to lose, and he's doing it in spades.


Current pollster.com trendline of national polls:

44.3% Obama
42.8% McCain

Current realclearpolitics.com running average of national polls:

44.9% Obama
43.4% McCain

Seriously. It's tight, and I worry too, of course, about which way it might still go. But dont lose your head. Obama is ahead, so how can you say Obama "just isn't cutting it with the voters" and is "losing .. in spades"? That doesnt make any sense.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 09:26 pm
One of the best indications that Obama knows the tide is turning, he is beginning to attack McCain, and I predict it won't work. Obama's only asset is that he is some kind of new politician, he is going to bring people together, he is a uniter, blah blah blah, so when he begins to sound shrill, you know he is beginning to feel desperate, and he comes off as amateurish and juvenile. McCain is McCain, the old man has been around the block, and he has been considered all but toast in the Republican primary, and against Obama too, you Dems thought it was a virtual lock. No way.

It must be very frustrating to feel that another one is beginning to slip away. Why don't you nominate a credible candidate, that would help. For crying out loud, people are begging to vote for a Democrat, if only you would nominate a good one to run.

I am partisan, I admit it, but I think what I say is pretty credible as this is unfolding.
Brand WTF
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:42 am
@okie,
As far as polls go McSenile has a lot of room to go up....conversely as evidenced by little or no convention/Biden bump....Barry has peaked. He has not been able to break away to any convincing margin.

I don't see Biden as helping Barry win the middle.

I don't know if it will stay this tight until November but I think McSenile's veep choice will set a new benchmark for the polls. If he makes a good pick I look for his numbers to spike significantly, if the pick is less than stellar the polling remains stagnant IMO.

I still think McSenile will win the election not that anyone should be thrilled with that outcome.

0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 06:11 am
@okie,
Quote:
blah blah blah
Irony or satire? you decide.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 06:27 am
http://boortz.com/images/082408_do_not_feed_leftists.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 07:39 am
@okie,
McCain, please do not fall prey to pleasing your Dem. good ole boys club of the Senate and pick Lieberman, or every bit of progress you have made against Obama will be history.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 08:43 am
@okie,
I have to agree. I adore Joe Lieberman and hold him in the highest esteem while being some distant right of him on several issues. But McCain is so far left on some issues that he is having to walk a very narrow line to maintain electability with his base. If he picks a running mate that is even farther left than he is, I don't think he can sustain it.

He has really found his sea legs in the last few weeks and is getting much more favorable reviews from his base. I sure hope he doesn't blow it with his veep pick.

And then, if he is elected, make Lieberman his Secretary of State or National Security guy or put him in some other appropriate high level position.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 08:48 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

And then, if he is elected, make Lieberman his Secretary of State or National Security guy or put him in some other appropriate high level position.

Agreed, appoint him to a position that doesn't affect the conservative agenda adversely. Lieberman is a good man, a decent guy, but just too liberal on several domestic issues.

Any guess as to who it will be? Word has it that it could be announced today. If not, tomorrow.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2018 at 01:16:57