A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

OCCOM BILL wrote:

More realistically: A few thousand reactors would accomplish the same, relatively quickly. Nuclear technology has come a long, long way. For instance; the BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia is a 600MW Fast breeder type reactor that defines "renewable energy". Using this technology; our current supply of Uranium is essentially unlimited (billions of years worth at current consumption rates).

A few thousand?

Uhm. A few dozen should probably be enough.

Don't like the 'fast breeder' type though. Would prefer PBR technology. Also, I realize that the perception of the potential danger of nuclear reactor technology is different when you're living in a country where you actually have vast, thinly populated stretches of land available where you can put those thingies.

Total land area of the United States (according to the CIA World Factbook): 9,161,923 sq km.



So, I guess we can agree that even by those very pessimistic numbers, your source must have been wrong. Completely wrong.

One was nuclear.

Another was I believe encouraging industry through the market attack the problem.

Another was conservation.

I don't remember word for word, but his answer was totally logical.

They are not the same Democrats, but they still have the same self defeating sympathies for whacko tree huggers, and they do not embrace the free market which holds the best promise for practical solutions.

I have said many times that Bush's fiscal policy is not conservative.

Obam a and Clinton may be in favor of nuclear now, however they don't seem to understand or admit it was their brand of political philosophy that stopped the progress of nuclear.

A leopard cannot change its spots easily.

No problem, I have already heard Ms. Clinton talk about taking the profits of oil companies to give it to government research efforts. This of course will be counterproductive, as the most efficient solutions are not generally found in this manner.

Rudy Giuliani is right in terms of an Apollo project to get us energy independent, and the effects of that on global warming are positive. It's a no-regrets policy. It's a great idea. [We need,] as a strategic imperative, energy independence for America. And it takes that Apollo project. It also takes biodiesel, biofuel, cellulosic ethanol, nuclear power, more drilling in ANWR. We have to be serious also about efficiency and that's going to allow us to become energy independent.

OE writes

Quote:

Total land area of the United States (according to the CIA World Factbook): 9,161,923 sq km.



So, I guess we can agree that even by those very pessimistic numbers, your source must have been wrong. Completely wrong.

Except that my 'source, referred to usable/suitable land. You can't count the places where there is little or no wind for days on end--I've lived in one such places--or the places that are cloudy a substantial amount of the time--I've lived in that kind of place too--or in dense forests or on steep hillsides or in deep canyons or in the middle of rivers or lakes or on sovereign Indian lands or in wildlife preserves or on flood plains or on glaciers or in areas highly vulnerable to blowing sand and/or hurricanes, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure that Phd Physicist who figured all that out in my previous post doesn't know a damn thing about it though.

By PBR I assume you mean Pebblebed?

How did you arrive at a few dozen? I'll meet you at a few hundred.

Total U.S. net summer generating capacity as of December 31, 2006 was 986,125 MW

My example numbers were exaggerated to dispel Foxy's myth; but realistically we could use something in the neighborhood of 300 GW of additional continuous nuclear power just to meet current needs... which would take hundreds of reactors. How do we get that much power out of a few dozen reactors? From what I can find; the biggest is the Soviet RBMK-1500 which still only produces 1.5 MWs.

There's this Finnish reactor with two 860MW units. A third unit is to be added.

old europe wrote:

There's this Finnish reactor with two 860MW units. A third unit is to be added.

Olkiluoto.

Two 860 MW units, the third unit is going to be the first EPR reactor - a 1,600 MW unit - which is going to make Olkiluoto a 3,320 MW facility.

BTW, what PBR incident took place in Germany? I know Chernobyl spooked everybody; but truth be told that could only happen in Russia (no one else used that unsafe design),

and the way I understand it; the PBR is meltdown proof by design. I read something where it was described as "walk away safe."

The mayor is a tough-talking New Yorker - a little too tough for our tastes.

In a conversation with this editorial board, he said the way to end terrorism is: "You get rid of the nation states that support it," opening the door to a host of possibilities.

He casually dismissed the National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus by the nation's 16 intelligence divisions that says Iran suspended its nuclear ambitions in 2003. Iran deserves microscopic scrutiny, no question, but Giuliani should understand that Americans will not support an invasion based on gut instinct.

Giuliani's posture on Iran is worrisome because he says that even knowing what we know now, he'd still invade Iraq. He says the war wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, but about getting rid of a regime that sponsored terrorism and defied the United Nations.

Now hold on a minute, Mr. Mayor. Americans did not support this war to create regime change in Iraq. They supported this war because our president and his administration told us they imminently feared a mushroom cloud over cities like yours.

Painters Union Endorses Huckabee

The 170,000-member International Painters Union endorsed Huckabee, per the governor's statement. About 30% of the union's members are Republicans. This is the first time the union has endorsed a GOP candidate in more 100 years. It is Huckabee's second union endorsement; the first was the Machinist & Aerospace Workers Union.

The Painters union also endorsed Hillary Clinton last month on the Democratic side. Previously the Machinists & Aerospace union also endorsed both Huckabee and Clinton.

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday January 12, 2008 07:49 EST
McCain spokesman John King of CNN
CNN reporter John King had the opportunity to interview GOP presidential candidate John McCain last night on McCain's press bus, and these are all of the "questions" he asked:

* JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You were speaking yesterday on the one-year anniversary of the president calling for the troop surge about how, A, you think it was the right policy, and, B, you think, frankly, you a little deserve credit, because you stood up and pushed for it when it was unpopular.

It was interesting yesterday. I kept looking at my BlackBerry e-mails all day long. I didn't hear the Democratic candidates talking much about that date. What does that tell you about the evolution of the politics of Iraq, if you will?

* KING: As you know, one of the issues you have had here in South Carolina in the past is either people don't understand your social conservative record or they're not willing to concede your social conservative record.

There's a mailing that hit South Carolina homes yesterday. It's a picture of you and Cindy on the front. It says "Always pro-life, 24-year record." Why do you think you still, after all this time, have to convince these people, "I have been with you from the beginning"?

* KING: The flip side of that mailing shows Cindy holding Bridget ... tiny Bridget, at the Bangladesh orphanage. As you know, some heinous and horrible things were said in the campaign eight years ago about you and about your daughter. Is that mailing in any way meant to tell people, here's the truth?

* KING: You feel good about the state this time?

That was the whole interview -- all four questions. To recap: (1) Democrats want to ignore your Glorious Surge; what does that tell you, huh? (2) Why are South Carolina voters failing to recognize what a stalwart rock-ribbed conservative you've always been? (3) Your baby daughter is absolutely beautiful and it was reprehensible what was done to you and her in 2000. (4) How great do you feel? End of "interview."

I'm asking this question literally, not rhetorically: if McCain's actual Press Secretary (rather than one of his many de facto ones in the press corps) had conducted this "interview," how would it have been any different? Maybe they would have at least tried to pretend the questions were a little more probing, less adulating, just for the sake of appearances if not basic dignity. It ended this way:

KING: You feel good about the state this time?

MCCAIN: Feel good. But I...

(LAUGHTER)

MCCAIN: ... have felt good about this far out some years ago. We're not -- but we're not revisiting the past.

Yes, I feel good, John.

KING: Senator, thank you very much.

MCCAIN: Thanks.

If you wanted to create a parody simultaneously mocking the drooling vapidity of our media stars and their giggly collective crush on John McCain, it would be impossible to create something more illustrative than what John King did here. For reverent, propagandizing behavior from our Liberal Media comparable to this, one has to go all the way back to . . . the 2000-2005 lionization of the Great Warrior King, George W. Bush. That McCain press bus is virtually pornographic.

For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists' idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government's revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS.

Rudy is as extreme as Bush when it comes to preemptive strikes. We don't need another crazy man running our country.

okie wrote:

One was nuclear.

Nuclear? Just that? Uhm.

So would you agree with those (Democratic) candidates who have stated that, in order to reach energy independence, America would have to expand on nuclear energy?

okie wrote:

Another was I believe encouraging industry through the market attack the problem.

Specifically how? Subsidies? Tax breaks? Incentives? Standards?

I assume you're in favour of a specific policy, not just of some wishy-washy platitudes...

okie wrote:

Another was conservation.

Now, that sounds very much like what the Democratic candidates have been saying, too.

How would you do that, specifically?

okie wrote:

I don't remember word for word, but his answer was totally logical.

Isn't that what you've been saying about Obama - that his speeches sounded great, but that people couldn't come up with any specifics?

You know.... that kind of criticism might be valid or not, but I find it difficult to go along with it when it's offered by somebody who can, when asked about a candidate he would apparently favour, refer to some platitudes about the 'free market', but mentions nothing specific either.

okie wrote:

They are not the same Democrats, but they still have the same self defeating sympathies for whacko tree huggers, and they do not embrace the free market which holds the best promise for practical solutions.

And your evidence for that is....?

I mean, neither Huckabee's nor Giuliani's Apollo like program or Manhattan Project like engagement sounds like they're willing to leave all the energy policy to the free market.

Actually, sounds more like a massive government program.

I have said many times that Bush's fiscal policy is not conservative.

okie wrote:

Obam a and Clinton may be in favor of nuclear now, however they don't seem to understand or admit it was their brand of political philosophy that stopped the progress of nuclear.

Why should they? Neither one is responsible for it. Otherwise you'd have to hold conservative candidates responsible for the fiscal policy of the Bush adminstration, too.

okie wrote:

A leopard cannot change its spots easily.

Wouldn't that mean: a conservative candidate will be unable to change the borrow-and-spend mentality of the current administration?

Or is that only true for Democratic candidates?

okie wrote:

No problem, I have already heard Ms. Clinton talk about taking the profits of oil companies to give it to government research efforts. This of course will be counterproductive, as the most efficient solutions are not generally found in this manner.

Well, that's at least a valid point. Clinton proposed, in order to decrease the use of foreign oil by 8 million barrels a day by 2025, to create a $50 billion "strategic energy fund" by increasing taxes on oil companies. She also suggested the government force oil firms to invest in unproven, renewable fuels like ethanol.


That's in contrast to Romney, who said that 'Big Oil' should reinvest the profits into oil refineries - without explaining how he would, uhm, coerce Big Oil into doing so.

Of course, he also came out in support of a massive programme that Giuliani proposed - without explaining how he would finance it:

Quote:

Rudy Giuliani is right in terms of an Apollo project to get us energy independent, and the effects of that on global warming are positive. It's a no-regrets policy. It's a great idea. [We need,] as a strategic imperative, energy independence for America. And it takes that Apollo project. It also takes biodiesel, biofuel, cellulosic ethanol, nuclear power, more drilling in ANWR. We have to be serious also about efficiency and that's going to allow us to become energy independent.

(At least that's what he said in the debate at Saint Anselm College on June 3, 2007).

So. An Apollo programme. Financed by? More money from China?