Wednesday, July 09, 2008

RNC TV Ad on Energy Gets Factchecked

Barack Obama on Nuclear EnergyOn Monday I posted on the RNC's first TV ad to be released during this presidential campaign. Today, Factcheck.org, the nonpartisan group funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, takes a look. An excerpt from their article, "A False Accusation About Energy"

No to "Nuclear"?

We’ve been through this. Obama has not said a flat-out "no" to nuclear, as the ad claims. Instead he has said he is in favor of nuclear energy if it is clean and safe, saying in his energy plan that "it is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table." But it’s true McCain is more aggressive in his support of nuclear power, giving it a prominent place in his energy plan, with the goal of creating 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and as many as 100 total. Obama’s energy plan contains no such initiative.

22 comments:

durden said...

Who writes these ad scripts? Baghdad Bob?

Luke said...

Instead [Obama] has said he is in favour of nuclear energy if it is clean and safe. Of course it _is_ clean and safe, so hopefully Obama comes to realise that this is already the case, and is fully in favour of nuclear energy for the US.

Well, I know some of you Republicans might think that's a little naive, but hopefully it's not.

Anonymous said...

You people here at NEI like ingratiating yourselves with the Dems. Elect Obama and you'll have more NRC Commissioners like Jackzo, and you'll have an anti-nuke heading up the DOE. Bush's GNEP will die. Obama can spin all he wants, but ingratiating yourselves on hands and knees isn't going to get you what you want. Electing McCain will. And no, I shall not open my mind so wide that my brains fall on out.

kb said...

Ingratiating? Hmmm...If by that you mean understanding the energy issues facing this country are complex and any solutions will require broad-based *and* bipartisan support, then yes, I'm guilty of being agreeable.

On hands and knees? Not so much.

Anonymous said...

Well, KB, you'll see once Obama is elected. And I will say, "I told you so."

kb said...

Anonymous (if that is your real name), Energy is not, nor should it be made, a partisan issue.

Charles Barton said...

Obama does not want to go down in history as the George W. Bush of the American Energy crisis. I would expect shortly after January 20, 2009, the new President Obama will set up a commission to make energy recommendations. 6 months later the Commission will report back that Nuclear Energy is clean and safe, and can be made even cleaner and safer. The report will also state that nuclear energy will play a major role in replacing carbon based energy sources, and will make recommendations for massive increases in research spending on Generation IV reactors, as well as significant policy changes designed to encourage the development of new nuclear facilities.

Anonymous said...

So kb, why isn't Charles Narton's response partisan? Why? because it's popular to criticize and condemn Bush, the only President to date to openly and unashamedly support nuclear energy in a very long time. The President who started GNEP.

I LOVE President Bush and I wish he could run again for the Presidency. Partisan? That's you guys who ingratiate yourselves with the left.

Anonymous said...

Little red riding-hood thought that grandma had quite big eyes. I think that Obama has quite big eyes when it comes to nuclear.

kb said...

@ anonymous (10:40am)
Nobody is condemning or critcizing anyone. Pointing out that there is growing support for nuclear energy among Democrats (yes, including the presumptive nominee for president) is not partisan, it's called consensus building.

One would think, anonymous, that, as a supporter of N, you'd welcome all members to the nuclear family.

Anonymous said...

Kb, concensus building isn't about criticizing the RNC or Bush as people at this blog do with abandon. Bush has openly supported nuke power, unlike his Dem predecessor. Now if Obama really does come support nuke power, then well and good. But I still won't vote for him. He's bad for the country and I won't participate in any concensus building. Not now. Not ever. I don't sleep with the devil.

kb said...

Again, no one here, and certainly not me, is condemning or criticizing anyone.

Check that. I will criticize the use of anonymous handles. It's always more pleasant to have a conversation with people rather than nameless individuals.

I'm kb. Nice to meet you. And you are?

Ray Lightning said...

Hello ms anonymous red riding hood..

Being a republican is no matter of shame, why don't you just take off your hood and use your real name.. ?

Btw, all this carping "vote for obama is a vote against nuclear" will not work on people with people of above-average level of intelligence (which is what we nuclear bloggers are).

We love facts and arguments.

I think Obama stands for a significant departure from the failed energy policies of the past. Too much attention has been given till now to big energy companies and their short term profits. U235 is no magic pill, and we know that it holds no promise for sustainable energy.

Nuclear can provide sustainable energy only when all the juice is used. Calling all that highly radioactive U238 as waste is blasphemy.

Breeders and MSRs are the way to go. I trust Obama for more research dollars in prototyping this stuff. Republican administration has so far been the enemy of science, just as bad as the catholic church had been during renaissance.

When we speak of the new (nuclear) renaissance, we should do something significantly new and big.

don kosloff said...

kb wrote: "Energy is not, nor should it be made, a partisan issue."

Thank you, I needed a good laugh. Do you write part time for Colin Ferguson?

Eric McErlain said...

Not that kb needs anyone to defend him, but since the beginning of this campaign season, NEI Nuclear Notes has passed along clips and news items concerning Senator Obama's position on nuclear energy more or less repeatedly. The first post ever written on Senator Obama appeared on these pages back in May 2005.

As for the contention that energy production should be taken off the table as a partisan issue, that's also something that's been part of the dialog at this blog since its inception.

GRLCowan said...

Surprisingly, "consensus" cannot be created by any evenhanded doling-out of C's and S's.


--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

Pete said...

"I am not a nuclear energy proponent." - Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

Obama is deftly playing both sides to get votes from both the pro- and anti-nuclear voters. The anti side counts on the provisions added to his comments.

What will Obama do as President? I have no idea, but I am pretty sure his nominee for Energy Secretary is not going to be a huge nuclear power supporter.

Anonymous said...

Ray Lightning, I can see it's as popular to criticize the Holy Catholic Church as it is the RNC. Actually, I suspect even more so. Stick to nuclear energy. Castigating what is most right and correct does no one any service except those on the left.

Ruth Sponsler said...

Isn't it interesting that the heartiest supporters of the Bush Administration (that has essentially bankrupted the U.S. government and alienated our friends/allies in Europe) are now most interested in posting using the name "Anonymous?"

I favor nuclear energy as strongly as Sen. McCain does.

However, until the Republican Party goes back to its traditions and shows some fiscal conservatism and restraint in foreign affairs, I will either vote Libertarian/Ron Paul, or I will vote for the Democrat.

McCain has a lot of work to do within his own party on the climate change issue.

He ought to start with his Party's Superstars: Rush Limbaugh is about as big as A-Rod - he just got a new almost-$400-million contract. Yet, Rush Limbaugh doesn't think that fossil fuel combustion causes climate change. (And by the way, Rush is no help to the War on Drugs, either, with his oxycontin abuse).

Just like "anonymous," I will say "I love President Bush."

Here is why: President Bush has changed the culture in America to make one of my hobbies, bicycling, more socially acceptable with a quadrupling of gas prices since he entered office.

Aside from Bill Clinton's strengths in maintaining a balanced Federal budget and strong U.S. dollar, the Democrats have some very serious limitations. Key among these limitations is failure to increase vehicle fuel efficiency standards while Clinton was in office.

Then again, the Republicans had 2000-2004 with the friendly Republican Congress to get going on domestic energy sources. They didn't.

So, now, the Republicans blame the Democrats. Wrong.

Unlike "anonymous," I have the fortitude to attach my name to my comment.

Anonymous said...

hi - this is my first response to this thread (so dont confuse me with the 'other' anonymous). I'd just like to say that I normally post as "anonymous" because I have had bad luck navigating the google account setup to get a user name. It's just alot faster to click anonymous. So, posting as anonymous is not necessarily a desire to hide identity ...

Anonymous said...

Welcome, anonymous 11:29 am!

I hear you about difficulties with Blogger - but they've done a great job resolving past problems with commenting.

If you click the "Name/URL" radio button under "Choose an identity" you can provide a name there. No need to set up anything.

sefarkas said...

Sen. Obama's arrogance to think someone with his little experience can successfully govern the United States is breathtaking. Here is an example where he and his staff proposed federal legislation that would at best duplicate long standing NRC regulations that are easily found on the web. Here is a subject that we know well; imagine what he would do in the context of issues we do not know so well. At best, he is getting very poor advice. And, he seems unable to recognize it.

Sen. OBAMA: "It was recently announced by Exelon Nuclear that an environmental monitoring program discovered higher than normal concentrations of tritium in the groundwater near their Nuclear Generating Station. Indications are that this tritium plume is the result of an accidental radioactive wastewater release that occurred approximately 6 to 8 years ago. Community residents did not receive full or immediate notification of this contamination.



"I was surprised to learn, that while Federal law requires notification immediately upon a "declared emergency," Federal law does not require notification of any other accidental, unplanned, or unintentional radioactive substance releases that may occur if those releases do not immediately rise to a public health or safety threat. And while those incidents must be documented with the NRC and made available to the public, accessing that information is contingent upon the public actually knowing that these incidents ever occurred.



"When radioactive substances are released into the environment outside of normal operating procedures, notifying State and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law.



"It is reasonable--and realistic--for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants--the most of any state. The people of Illinois--and all residents who live near nuclear power plants--have a right to know when actions are taken that might affect their safety and well-being."