View Full Version: Obama in pocket of nuclear industry

Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore! > Environmental Issues > Obama in pocket of nuclear industry


Title: Obama in pocket of nuclear industry
Description: (see linked article)


hangingchad - March 21, 2011 01:49 PM (GMT)
Obama’s ties to the nuclear industry are crystal clear and run very deep, which is why he continues to push nuclear energy and new nuclear plants (even now, post-Japan) with the same old lie that has always been used to push them, namely the claim that they are “clean”, safe, efficient and sustainable, not to mention affordable. The reality is they are none of those things, never have been, never will be. Just the opposite, they create waste that we don’t know what to do with, they are EXTREMELY dangerous, and they are very expensive. We need a president, a LEADER, who will promote TRULY clean, sustainable, safe, renewable energy that works in harmony with nature instead of violating it. We need a president who will invest in and push for solar and wind. Instead, we have someone in the pocket of the nuclear industry. Witness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/oba...Lu8r_story.html

Wayne in WA State - March 21, 2011 03:32 PM (GMT)
If we are serious about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and fighting climate change, I think nuclear power cannot be ruled out if it is done with a great deal of care and safety. Countries like France think nuclear should be part of the mix. For perspective on Japan, over ten thousand people have been killed by the giant earthquake and tsunami, no one to my knowledge has been killed by the nuclear incident.

I think we need to make a massive push for solar, wind and geothermal energy there is no doubt. At the same time I'm not ready to shut down electricity from nuclear power, especially if the short term alternative is burning coal.

ducking for cover now..


Texan for Gore - March 21, 2011 04:29 PM (GMT)
Even though the majority of deaths in Japan have been because of the earthquake and tsunami, it seems that the radiation threat would have more of a long term threat, healthwise, and has the potential to kill lots of people. And while it's been argued that nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal circumstances, it just seems too risky in cases of natural disasters, plus having to worry about where to store the waste.

I don't know how long it takes to make a nuclear power plant, but my question is, why can't the focus initially be on solar and wind to start off with? I mean, how much energy can nuclear sources provide versus wind and solar sources and wouldn't it be more practical to start off building wind farms, going solar, etc., than to build nuclear power plants first, THEN go to wind and solar. Plus, I could see excuses being made to delay going to wind and solar, by making statements that the nuclear plants are serving the purpose, so there is no need to go to something else.

You know, it's hard to imagine that we didn't have electricity at one time. My boss, who is my age, says she can remember when our own town didn't have electricity. I really don't remember that. Maybe it was the folks on the outskirts of town who didn't have electricity. But I remember we used to have this place that sold blocks of ice for "ice boxes." And now here we are, our elected officials, willing to use nuclear energy despite it's potential for disaster. :?:

hangingchad - March 21, 2011 07:48 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Mar 21 2011, 10:32 AM)
If we are serious about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and fighting climate change, I think nuclear power cannot be ruled out if it is done with a great deal of care and safety. Countries like France think nuclear should be part of the mix. For perspective on Japan, over ten thousand people have been killed by the giant earthquake and tsunami, no one to my knowledge has been killed by the nuclear incident.

I think we need to make a massive push for solar, wind and geothermal energy there is no doubt. At the same time I'm not ready to shut down electricity from nuclear power, especially if the short term alternative is burning coal.

ducking for cover now..

Well, I only have a few nanoseconds before my co-worker calls and says "Let's go", and I have to log off, so no need to duck, you lucky duck! :Y:

That said: WHATCHU TAWKIN' 'BOUT, WILLIS? The extreme dangers inherent to nuclear power are no way worth it. HC has spoken!

As for TfG's post: sing it, sister. I'd rather revert to candles and rising and setting with the sun than having nuclear energy.

Check out my latest blog (via the link at the bottom of my posts). I've linked not only the article I linked about Obama being beholden to Big Nuke (as he is, imho, to Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Coal...anything Big, he seems beholden to it, far as I can discern, but moving along), I've linked an article at the end about the resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement. Perhaps that is a silver lining to the terrible, terrible, epic tragedy in Japan.

earthmother - March 22, 2011 03:06 AM (GMT)
Chad, before you're so quick to dis Obama for supporting nuclear energy, remember that our man--OUR MAN--supports nuclear energy because it's an available technology that can immediately halt our dependence on fossil fuels. I'm not saying I agree with his position; this is one place where I don't. I think we don't yet have answers to many of the problems with nuclear energy, including what to do with the inevitable nuclear waste, how to keep fissionable material out of the hands of terrorists, and better guarantees that nuclear plants are safe from the threat of natural disasters as well as man-made ones. But my point here is that you're very quick to criticize Obama for this, despite the fact that it is the same position Gore takes.

Texan for Gore - March 22, 2011 02:19 PM (GMT)
I think there's probably a good many of our politicians who support nuclear energy, unfortunately. I wonder if Gore has changed his stance on the issue at all, especially given what's happened in Japan.

One thing that seems to be problematic is that so many of our officials do seem to be in the pockets of things like oil & gas, dirty coal and nuclear energy, etc. I wish if they're going to be indebted to somebody, it was those in the wind and solar business. At least that would be healthy and safe for our environment. <_<

Wayne in WA State - March 22, 2011 03:14 PM (GMT)
I'll just say that because someone, a politician or a regular citizen, holds a position that you or I disagree with does not mean that they are 'in the pocket' of anyone. It may well be they sincerely hold a different point of view. From what I have read Gore doesn't see nuclear energy as the whole answer, or the main answer to our energy problems but he has said he sees nuclear energy as part of the answer. So do I. Research into safer and more economical forms of nuclear energy deserve major support. I've checked my pockets and I can assure you they have not been lined by corporate lobbyists.

user posted image

Texan for Gore - March 22, 2011 04:02 PM (GMT)
Wayne, I would never suspect your pockets were lined by corporate lobbyists. :lol:

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't have that same level of confidence when it comes to politicians. And I'm not picking on anyone in particular here. There's just too much indication that politicians are indeed heavily influenced by the corporate interest. That's just one of my pet peeves. And I guess what irks me about that is that they make decisions that affect our lives everyday. Yet we have very little say in what they're doing.

There may be valid arguments in support of nuclear energy, but imo, it's just not worth the risk. It's like watching the Earth bursting at the seams. Everytime there's a major catastrophe, like the Gulf oil spill or this threat of nuclear disaster in Japan, I think this will get people's attention and they will realize that we need to start making the move to more safer forms of energy. But there still seems to be just as much resistance to clean energy as there ever was. :?: It just boggles my mind. :wacko:

earthmother - March 22, 2011 07:37 PM (GMT)
Obviously Gore doesn't think nuclear is the whole answer, and he may well have changed his tune a bit lately, but clearly his whole thing is that we need whatever we can do to get off fossil fuels, and if that means nuclear, well, so be it. Not sure that's a smart approach, but since he says we're facing an emergency situation with global warming, I guess he thinks it's worth the risk.

Patsy - March 24, 2011 04:22 PM (GMT)
I do not believe in his heart of hearts that he really likes nuclear power. He stopped a plant from being built in Portland TN, and when he was in power, he would not let trucks of nuclear waste pass through TN, now with Alexandra in contol, we are the passageway to the west. Gore said that it would take only one mistake or accident to turn TN into another Russia. I think that he realizes that he has to give a little to get alot for his green energy.

Texan for Gore - March 24, 2011 07:01 PM (GMT)
I kinda thought that too, Patsy, that Gore figures he had to give a little in order to make headway in going green. And if he stopped a plant from being built in Portland, TN, that tells me he's not completely at ease with the idea of nuclear power.

earthmother - March 24, 2011 07:36 PM (GMT)
I seriously doubt Gore likes the idea of nuclear power and the harm it can do. But I think he sees it as the lesser of two evils since he believes that global warming is literally going to do in the planet. My opinion, though, is that nuclear has the potential to do the same thing. But I guess from Gore's point of view, one's a sure thing that's going to happen, and the other is just a possibility.

hangingchad - March 30, 2011 07:44 PM (GMT)
Rant alert!!!!

I've been wanting to come back into this thread for a long time, but again, my internet access is super dicey to non-existent, so I haven't had a chance. Well, my boss just left (yay!) and I just read something INFURIATING on the net, so that combo has led me back, finally.

First off, I want to say that Wayne is absolutely right: one can certainly be for or against something without being "in the pocket" of anyone or any entity. The reason I say Obama is "in the pocket" of Big Nukes, if you will (just made that phrase up), is because of the money trail of contributors to his campaigns, as well as key people advising him and in his administration. Again, see my original link.

And now THIS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/us/31obama.html

When I saw the headline on my Google homepage and clicked on the article, I wanted so badly to think, oh, YAY, kudos to Obama for LEADING, for doing something, on climate change. But I KNEW. I knew what I would find as I read on in the article, and the whole time, I'm thinking "Wait for it...wait for it, hangingchad, you know it is coming." And sure enough, Obama is USING climate change to justify building more nukes!!!!! He had just stated his support for more nukes before Japan, but has gone silent since, until now. So he had to find a way to make it palatable to the American people, post-Japan. That man could sell fish hooks to fish!!!!! Ingenius: he announces a wonderful new climate change package of ideas and, oh, btw, nuclear is still a big part of the solution to climate change, and we all want to solve climate change, now don't we, my gullible little kiddies?

Quote: "The president repeated his assertion that, despite the frightening situation at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex in Japan, nuclear power will remain an important source of electricity in the United States for decades to come.

“It’s important to recognize that nuclear energy doesn’t emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said, noting that nuclear power now provides about one-fifth of domestic electricity supplies. “Those of us concerned about climate change know that nuclear power, if it’s safe, can make a significant contribution to the climate change question. And I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe.”


He even has the GALL to say that anyone who is concerned about climate change is for nuclear energy! Speak for your own INFURIATING self, Obama!

I'm sorry to all of you who love the man but, I'm telling you, I DETEST this guy. I just simply detest him and see right through him and always have and can't believe that all my fellow liberals still do not. Some do, but most still think the guy parted the Red Sea.

Well, to him I say: NO NEW NUKES! We can solve climate change without creating more devastating environmental disasters and human tragiedies waiting to happen. Even if they don't melt down, what are you proposing to do with the nuclear waste, Obama? WHAT? WHAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell me, d*amn it. I'm all ears.

I am SO SICK of big business running this world, ruining this world.

Color me radicalized anew, and I'm about to read a book I just ordered that a friend told me I have to read, called "The Shock Doctrine", which I'm sure will put me over the top!

End of rant. As always, thanks for listening. I know some of you still like Obama, but WHY is he so intent on pushing for new nukes, other than the money trail that clearly ties him to that industry? We do not need nukes to fuel our future, people. Solar energy IS the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, I know, it isn't quite as simple as that, but almost! Yes, will will also need wind, geothermal, biofuels, and other sustainable, renewable energy, but solar, in the future, can power this world. We need to INVEST in R & D and infrastructure!

If I have to chain myself to wherever they think they are building new nukes at this point, I shall. And there is one place that the power company right here in my area is already planning to build a new reactor, so that's my first stop. Like I said, color me radicalized anew on so many fronts, and my inner anti-nuclear activist, for so long dormant, has ROARED back awake.

Just saying.

hangingchad - March 30, 2011 07:49 PM (GMT)
P.S. D*mn, I'm good. I might have to turn that last post into a blog.

Oh yeah.

earthmother - March 30, 2011 11:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hangingchad @ Mar 30 2011, 07:44 PM)
And sure enough, Obama is USING climate change to justify building more nukes!!!!! He had just stated his support for more nukes before Japan, but has gone silent since, until now. So he had to find a way to make it palatable to the American people, post-Japan. That man could sell fish hooks to fish!!!!! Ingenius: he announces a wonderful new climate change package of ideas and, oh, btw, nuclear is still a big part of the solution to climate change, and we all want to solve climate change, now don't we, my gullible little kiddies?

Chad, I guess you didn't read through this whole thread because I said something a while back that might have made you have a slightly different attitude than what you're saying here. Or maybe not. But would you be so quick to dis Al Gore for the same thing you're all over Obama for? Gore has been on record for years as favoring nuclear power as a way to get off fossil fuels because it's technology we have now, it's relatively inexpensive, and it can help stop climate change NOW. This is one thing I vehemently disagree with Gore about, but this is, or at least has been, his position. And I don't see you taking him to task for it. In fact, I think that if you did disagree with Gore on that position, you'd do it a lot more respectfully than the way you're treating Obama.

Essentially, Obama is adopting Gore's stand on this. I've known you long enough to know you're not a hypocrite, so, would you yell at Gore for his position the way you have at Obama? Just know that they are both saying exactly the same thing with regard to this issue, and if one is wrong, then the other one is, too, and Gore deserves as much of your ire as Obama does. Are you going to give him a talking to?

Having said all that, I've missed you, and it's good to see you here. Hope you'll be able to post more. :good:

hangingchad - March 31, 2011 01:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Mar 30 2011, 06:22 PM)
QUOTE (hangingchad @ Mar 30 2011, 07:44 PM)
And sure enough, Obama is USING climate change to justify building more nukes!!!!!  He had just stated his support for more nukes before Japan, but has gone silent since, until now.  So he had to find a way to make it palatable to the American people, post-Japan.  That man could sell fish hooks to fish!!!!!  Ingenius:  he announces a wonderful new climate change package of ideas and, oh, btw, nuclear is still a big part of the solution to climate change, and we all want to solve climate change, now don't we, my gullible little kiddies?

Chad, I guess you didn't read through this whole thread because I said something a while back that might have made you have a slightly different attitude than what you're saying here. Or maybe not. But would you be so quick to dis Al Gore for the same thing you're all over Obama for? Gore has been on record for years as favoring nuclear power as a way to get off fossil fuels because it's technology we have now, it's relatively inexpensive, and it can help stop climate change NOW. This is one thing I vehemently disagree with Gore about, but this is, or at least has been, his position. And I don't see you taking him to task for it. In fact, I think that if you did disagree with Gore on that position, you'd do it a lot more respectfully than the way you're treating Obama.

Essentially, Obama is adopting Gore's stand on this. I've known you long enough to know you're not a hypocrite, so, would you yell at Gore for his position the way you have at Obama? Just know that they are both saying exactly the same thing with regard to this issue, and if one is wrong, then the other one is, too, and Gore deserves as much of your ire as Obama does. Are you going to give him a talking to?

Having said all that, I've missed you, and it's good to see you here. Hope you'll be able to post more. :good:

I miss hanging out on the ole’ Gore cyberhomestead here, too! My computer access is still ridonkulous (long story), so that is why I’m an absent pup so much. I miss you guys!!!

Now, about “would you be so quick to dis Al Gore for the same thing you’re all over Obama for?”

NO, because Al Gore’s opinions are based on what he sincerely thinks is best for the world, EM. I see Al Gore as a visionary leader. I see Obama as the slickest of slick politicians, who says all the right things at any given time to please any given group he needs to please to advance the cause of his own power, period. I’ve come to these conclusions after observing Al Gore since about 1988 and Barack Obama since the Democratic Convention speech he gave in 2004. From that first moment I saw him give that speech and everyone was raving about it and saying what star quality he had and how he was one to watch and could even be president one day, I was like: Wuuuh? I don’t see it: what am I missing? It reminded me and still reminds me of the Reagan era, when everyone kept saying what a great orator Reagan was and how much charisma he had. I never thought he was charming, charismatic, or a great orator. I saw Reagan as a bellicose simpleton who made jokes like “We begin bombing in five minutes.” Obama, on the other hand, is no simpleton, that’s for sure. He is very bright indeed but, to me, he is all hollow slogans and no substance and he is the quintessential sell-out politician. His whole “hope and change” campaign was nothing more than a brilliant advertising campaign, positioned at the right—no, the perfect—time in history to strike the right chord and thus he was swept into office (well, that and the fact that the whole Democratic primary process in 2007/8 was corrupted, and yes I’m bringing that up again, because the way his campaign behaved during the primary/delegate crisis was and remains completely inappropriate and a HUGE reason why I detest him and don’t trust him).

If Al Gore is for nuclear power (and I don’t think he is now—he used to be, yes, but I think his stance has evolved to one of at least having serious concerns about its viability and, I think, actually one of being against it now), it is because he honestly thinks it has a place. And if he does, I vehemently disagree with him on that. But Obama makes me sick because he doesn’t CARE, one way or the other, he just wants power (no pun intended). I truly believe that Obama is pushing nukes because “Big Nukes” have been a big contributor to his political career, and those of many of his key people (Axelrod ALERT!).

I know that Al Gore used to think that nuclear energy could represent part of the solution to getting us off of fossil fuels and onto a cleaner, greener path. However, my understanding is that, in recent years, his opinion has evolved and he now doesn’t think it is worth the problems with waste disposal and danger.

Slightly different (but related) subject: I don’t know if any of y’all are familiar with the Myers-Briggs/Kiersey personality types, which I used to think, based on the face of it, was a load of hoooey, until I really started studying it and the sound, Jungian psychological basis for it. I am an “INFJ”, which is the rarest (and weirdest *LOL*) 1% to 2% of people, and basically, we are your super-sensitive, imaginative, head-in-the-clouds folks, which is not necessarily a good thing in a lot of ways, BUT one thing we are really, really good at is sizing people up. We can see right through fakes, liars and hypocrites. Until I really started learning about the Kiersey types, and my own INFJ type, I didn’t ever understand that this was a very rare thing, to be able to “see right through people”, and therefore, I’ve always been MASSIVELY FRUSTRATED that I can SHOUT at people “Don’t you see that this person is a FAKE, a FRAUD, a total whatever (fill in the blanks)?!!!!! Why am I the only one who sees it?!!!!”, yet they don’t see it, even when I oh-so-helpfully point it out to them! Only when I started learning about INFJs and how different we are from your regular-issue folks, for better or worse, did I realize: oh, I see, most folks can’t see right through each other...the lucky BLEEPS! It would make life so much easier and less maddening NOT to be able to see if someone is a certain way that no one else seems to believe me about...until I’m proven right, which I usually am (just saying *lol*).

99.999999% of the time, I am dead on about people...except for John Edwards—either I was REALLY wrong about him, or he made a REALLY bad series of mistakes during a really stressful time, but either way, I’m very shocked and disappointed in him AND it made me question my oh-so-perfect radar about people. So, I can be wrong—way wrong. Usually, though, when it comes to sizing people up, that is one of the few things in life I really excel at. So, take this for what it is or isn’t worth to you, but I have seen through Obama from the git-go, and I’ve taken SO MUCH rhymes-with-pit from my fellow liberals about my opinion of him. I’ve been called some really hurtful names over it, none of which are true (God knows I’ve got my faults-a-plenty, but NOT the things I was called over not being for Obama). I really feel that, one day, everyone will see and will get it about him, but for now, many people still see in him what they want and need to see in him, and he is sooooooooo good at helping that illusion along, because he is essentially HOLLOW, so it is easy to project what you want to project onto and into him, to fill him up with whatever one wants him to be. But, as the old saying goes about the suburbs, “there’s no there there”.

And I, for one, refuse to play into his hands about this new energy plan, because he has “bundled” new nukes into it, so I’m crying a big, fat FOUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOUL BALL!

(Aaand, I think I see yet another blog in this sucka. Oh yeah.)

earthmother - March 31, 2011 01:47 PM (GMT)
I go back and forth on my feelings about Obama, but I do think you're being overly critical when you accuse him of saying we need nukes for the sake of stopping global warming ONLY because he's slick. But even if that's your opinion (and you're entitled to it, even if I think you're wrong), I think the main thing is that, regardless of his motives, the important thing is that he does the "right" thing by us. I know, I know. Health care reform was a bust, but that was not his fault. There was no way we were going to get a stronger bill than we got, and look at what's happening now. It's all going to be taken away anyway. State after state is shooting down the basic premise that everyone must buy in, saying it's unconstitutional, and then the Congress will put the final nails in the coffin.

I know there's no way we'll convince you that Obama's not what you think he is. And I may not think he's the best, but I think he's a whole lot better than you do. I just want to be sure that you apply the same standards to everyone, and the last I heard, Gore was still supporting nuclear as a way to get us off fossil fuels NOW. I'm not aware of any stated change in that position . . .

hangingchad - March 31, 2011 02:05 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Mar 31 2011, 08:47 AM)
I go back and forth on my feelings about Obama, but I do think you're being overly critical when you accuse him of saying we need nukes for the sake of stopping global warming ONLY because he's slick.  But even if that's your opinion (and you're entitled to it, even if I think you're wrong), I think the main thing is that, regardless of his motives, the important thing is that he does the "right" thing by us.  I know, I know.  Health care reform was a bust, but that was not his fault.  There was no way we were going to get a stronger bill than we got, and look at what's happening now.  It's all going to be taken away anyway.  State after state is shooting down the basic premise that everyone must buy in, saying it's unconstitutional, and then the Congress will put the final nails in the coffin.

I know there's no way we'll convince you that Obama's not what you think he is.  And I may not think he's the best, but I think he's a whole lot better than you do.  I just want to be sure that you apply the same standards to everyone, and the last I heard, Gore was still supporting nuclear as a way to get us off fossil fuels NOW.  I'm not aware of any stated change in that position . . .

I think Gore's position is now that there are too many problems with nuclear power, and at the same time, such better alternatives with solar and wind, that we should not go with nuclear power as an option:

http://www.green-blog.org/2009/03/18/al-go...climate-crisis/

That link is from 2009, but I can't imagine that his position has swung pro-nuke since, especially now, post-Japan.

As for Obama, I'm hard on him, yes. I mean, God knows, he's better than Bush. I voted for him. I didn't want to, but it was that or have Sarah Palin be a heartbeat from the presidency.

I am personally still very angry about the integrity of the primary process in 2008, and most of that wrath goes to how our party chose to handle the situation with FL and MI, but some rightly goes to the Obama campaign because they stuck their nose in and interfered mightily in disgusting ways that were NOT kosher. They should have, with the exception of signing the stooo-pit "pledge", if they so desired (and they did), STAYED OUT OF IT and let the parties and the two states work it out. Instead they interfered in many ways and I won't get into it all again, I only bring it up to say I'M NOT OVER IT. It greatly influenced my opinion of Obama and every time I perceive a certain smugness, a certain bullying quality to him and his administration, it brings it back. I lived through 2000, and my fellow Goristas should have some empathy for what that must have been like for the FL Gorista contingent in particular, and then I lived through 2008, and SOMEHOW--even though my party stabbed me and every other Florida (and Michigan) Democrat through the heart in 2008--I'm still a Democrat, although frankly after 2008 it really was dicey there and then how my party acted about health care almost SNAPPED the umbilical cord. They didn't fight for single payor or even ALLOW single-payor advocates a seat at the table. It is basically the Mitt Romney health plan that we have ended up with, and I for one want it repealed because it is worse than doing nothing. Yeah, I said it. We need a national, Medicare-for-All, single payer system, nothing else will be sustainable and moral. And it has no shot now. NONE. And I blame Obama and my party for falling in line behind him instead of FIGHTING when we had a golden moment in history.

There is SO MUCH, so many reasons, that have built up in me as to why I can't stand Obama. Is it all fair? Maybe not. I think my feelings/thoughts about his campaign's behavior in 2007/8 are fair. I think my disappointment and disgust over health care is pretty fair, although he did face a ridiculously uphill battle, even if he HAD been a great leader and really fought FOR something instead of just saying "you all hash it out and get back to me--well, not ALL of you, just the Big Insurance crowd--you single-payor advocates will be taken out in handcuffs."

:angry:

I've tried to give the guy the benefit of the doubt so many times, but I got over that a while back. I'm done. Sorry, my opinion is pretty set in stone at this time.

earthmother - March 31, 2011 02:14 PM (GMT)
First of all, thanks so much for the link showing that Gore has changed his tune regarding nuclear. I hadn't seen or heard anything about that. Last I heard him talk about it was in the run-up to 2008 when he was all over TV plugging An Inconvenient Truth, and he said his only real objection to nuclear power was the fear that fissionable material would get into the wrong hands. He acknowledged that we hadn't yet figured out what to do with nuclear waste but that we surely would and also that we'd get a better handle on the safety issues. I'm very glad he's changed his mind about all that.

Beyond that, is it possible that Obama et al. had their hands in Florida in 2008 precisely because of what happened in 2000? Forgive me, but I don't remember the exact details of what you're so upset about that happened in 2008. Maybe you could refresh my memory?

And as for the single-payer thing . . . Chad, face it. There was NO WAY that was ever going to get passed, and Obama knew it. I've heard him address that specific issue. It's what he would have liked, ideally, but he plainly said that he knew there was no point wasting time pushing for it because it wasn't going to happen. And he was right. Look how narrowly we got anything passed, and that was with a Dem. majority! The guy is a good politician in the sense that he knows how to play the game. He knew that there was no sense wasting political capital on pushing for something that would never happen. So he fought for what was possible, rather than crying for something that was impossible. Gore has done the same thing. We have to take baby steps because we are a nation of imbeciles. And even then, it's one step up and two steps back. You can't blame Obama for that.

hangingchad - March 31, 2011 03:10 PM (GMT)
Quotes by Earthmother appear in purple.

“First of all, thanks so much for the link showing that Gore has changed his tune regarding nuclear. I hadn't seen or heard anything about that. Last I heard him talk about it was in the run-up to 2008 when he was all over TV plugging An Inconvenient Truth, and he said his only real objection to nuclear power was the fear that fissionable material would get into the wrong hands. He acknowledged that we hadn't yet figured out what to do with nuclear waste but that we surely would and also that we'd get a better handle on the safety issues. I'm very glad he's changed his mind about all that.”

I, too, am glad that he has changed his tune on nuclear power. I knew he’d come around! ;)

“Beyond that, is it possible that Obama et al. had their hands in Florida in 2008 precisely because of what happened in 2000? Forgive me, but I don't remember the exact details of what you're so upset about that happened in 2008. Maybe you could refresh my memory?”

Well, I’m hearing a collective GROAN from everyone else on this forum who, I’m sure, does remember my many rantings during 2007/8 regarding the party’s actions about the primary situation, and the actions of the Obama campaign, so I won’t go into much detail, out of consideration for them, but for you, the short version is:

1. REPUG-led FL state legislature decides to flout the rule of both parties and move up the FL primary date. Michigan also pulled a similar move.

2. Howard Dean, head of the Dem Party at the time, made a BAD decision in response. Instead of doing what the party bylaws recommend in such a situation and simply halving the delegates in punishment (which is what the repug party did), which would have effectively punished Florida by diminishing our voice in the primary, but left the VOTERS with a REPRESENTATIVE, albeit diminished, voice in the process, he decided to take away all our delegates and tell us our votes wouldn’t count. The fact that, in the end, they did, did not “fix” anything, as meanwhile, the process was corrupted by the party AND THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN repeatedly telling Florida voters to stay home and that our votes would not count in the primary. The FL state party tried to counter this message by telling FL voters to get out and vote for the candidate of their choice, because the state party was fighting for our delegate, but their voice was not heard over the national party and the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign, for example, had David Plouffe and John Kerry go out ON ELECTION DAY WHILE THE POLLS WERE OPEN, and go on the radio, and tell voters and anyone else listening that the Florida primary was, quoting John Kerry, “a beauty contest.” This was on election day. Polls open. Obama campaign INTERFERED with an election in progress. They should have shut their pie holes and let the party and the states (FL and MI) work it out one way or the other, but it is not okay—it is a conflict of interest!!!—for any of the campaigns to stick their noses in. And they did a bunch of other stuff besides that radio broadcast, let me tell you, a LOT. They made it a point every chance they got to tell Florida Democrats to stay home on primary day because our votes would not count. Am I, a Gore supporter, a Democrat, who lived through 2000, over that? Over my national party and the Obama campaign doing that to us in 2008, and not just to us, but to the integrity of the primary process? No. I have forgiven Howard Dean and John Kerry, as much as possible, but the Obama administration is basically the same folks as the Obama campaign, and they act the same: same sense of entitlement and arrogance on everything, same dismissive attitude, and, like I said, it always calls it to mind. And I think: shut up, Obama, you weren’t even elected in a fair primary process.

That’s how I feel about it. The weird thing is, that was 2007/8, that passions ran so high and I was SO upset about it. This is 2011. And while the three years has mellowed my feelings towards Howard Dean (mainly because he fought so hard for TRUE health reform that it reminded me that, even though I passionately disagreed with his decision on taking away ALL instead of HALF the delegates (had he done half, I would have had zero problem, that would have been fair, and my vote would still have counted, we would just have had less of a voice at the convention, but still a representative one), and towards the party (although the health care debate made things worse for a while before they got better), my outrage at the Obama people is still just as strong as ever. Again, I think it is because the arrogance and entitlement that I saw in his campaign, I see in his administration, so I never can forget about how he dismissed Florida and Michigan. When they dragged the single payer advocates out in handcuffs, it was like: omg, they are doing it again. No one gets a voice except who they want to have a voice. Chicago politics ALERT.

“And as for the single-payer thing . . . Chad, face it. There was NO WAY that was ever going to get passed, and Obama knew it.”

Now, wait a minute: are we so sure about that? We had a MOMENT! He had so much goodwill and such a perfect “honeymoon period” opportunity. He had captured the imaginations and the hearts of the Bush-weary American people and I think, had he really went to bat for something—not necessarily single payer, which I passionately maintain we NEED, but for something, even just his “public option” (which was not going to solve anything, but anyway), he could have gotten it. Instead, we have some sort of Romney Lite: all the cost and none of the coverage, or very little coverage, anyway.

“I've heard him address that specific issue. It's what he would have liked, ideally, but he plainly said that he knew there was no point wasting time pushing for it because it wasn't going to happen. And he was right. Look how narrowly we got anything passed, and that was with a Dem. majority! The guy is a good politician in the sense that he knows how to play the game. He knew that there was no sense wasting political capital on pushing for something that would never happen. So he fought for what was possible, rather than crying for something that was impossible. Gore has done the same thing. We have to take baby steps because we are a nation of imbeciles.”

:laugh: LOLOLOLOL! Well, you have a point there, my friend. You do indeed have a point there. And, back to the INFJ thing, one of our flaws (even though it is a cool thing), is that we’re the ultimate idealists. So I do tend to get CRUSHED if I have to settle for something “less than”. And this...this...THING is really less than. To the point of being a bad thing for the country, me thinks, as it is so costly, yet doesn’t do much for the investment.

“And even then, it's one step up and two steps back. You can't blame Obama for that.”

Well, it ain’t his fault that we are a nation of imbeciles, as you put it, ‘tis true. *sigh* He’s my exact age (he’s a few weeks older than me) and we were born into that fact. Maybe because he is my exact, specific generation, that is why I am so frustrated with him. It’s like: well, WE have the reigns now, and this is all you can muster? Dag nub it, DO SOMETHING! You’re in there, I don’t think you were elected fairly, but there you are, so do something, will ya? Announce something really BOLD on climate change: America running 90% on solar power by the year whatever. A smart grid, huge investment in solar (that will irk the tea partiers—yay!), etc. But, no, every time he talks about clean energy, he veers uncontrollably into nuclear and “clean coal”! There is no clean coal! And nuclear is the opposite of clean and green. So...grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

earthmother - March 31, 2011 03:49 PM (GMT)
I'm sorry I made you rewrite all that stuff, Chad. I remember now what it was all about (please forgive this sieve-like brain of mine).

I agree that people made bad decisions given what was going on, but was it really okay for them (Reps.) to again disenfranchise voters (mostly Dems.) by their actions? Obviously Kerry, Dean, Obama, and whomever, didn't want people to not vote. That's lunacy! And there are many places where Obama is on record encouraging people to get out and vote. Here's just one of many I found:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/24/florida_voting

How could it make sense that the Dems. (especially the party head) would do things that would make it so their party would lose the election? Again, I think bad decisions were made, but they were definitely NOT trying to keep Florida Dems. from registering their votes for Obama. It just isn't logical . . .

And again, the single-payer thing--it wasn't going to happen. Even Gore said so.

Also, you say you'd like to see Obama make some truly bold move on climate change. Yeah, wouldn't we all. But there are priorities, and again, there's also reality. Even Gore has acknowledged that we need to do this in increments, that we can't just make the kinds of pronouncements you advocate. There's the economy to consider, and politics, and reality. In Florida, the Sunshine State, yeah, solar might be a viable option. In the northeast, uh uh. We're just not there yet. I do wish there were more incentive to develop these technologies, and that is part of the problem, but with the economy in the shape its in and all the stuff that's going on all over the world, I don't think even a President Gore would've made a lot of headway with this.

Them's just my opinions, but they are what they are.

hangingchad - March 31, 2011 04:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Mar 31 2011, 10:49 AM)
I'm sorry I made you rewrite all that stuff, Chad.  I remember now what it was all about (please forgive this sieve-like brain of mine). 

I agree that people made bad decisions given what was going on, but was it really okay for them (Reps.) to again disenfranchise voters (mostly Dems.) by their actions?  Obviously Kerry, Dean, Obama, and whomever, didn't want people to not vote.  That's lunacy!  And there are many places where Obama is on record encouraging people to get out and vote.  Here's just one of many I found:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/24/florida_voting

How could it make sense that the Dems. (especially the party head) would do things that would make it so their party would lose the election?  Again, I think bad decisions were made, but they were definitely NOT trying to keep Florida Dems. from registering their votes for Obama.  It just isn't logical . . .

And again, the single-payer thing--it wasn't going to happen.  Even Gore said so. 

Also, you say you'd like to see Obama make some truly bold move on climate change.  Yeah, wouldn't we all.  But there are priorities, and again, there's also reality.  Even Gore has acknowledged that we need to do this in increments, that we can't just make the kinds of pronouncements you advocate.  There's the economy to consider, and politics, and reality.  In Florida, the Sunshine State, yeah, solar might be a viable option.  In the northeast, uh uh.  We're just not there yet.  I do wish there were more incentive to develop these technologies, and that is part of the problem, but with the economy in the shape its in and all the stuff that's going on all over the world, I don't think even a President Gore would've made a lot of headway with this.

Them's just my opinions, but they are what they are.

Just my opinion, but here it is: the sole reason that the Obama campaign was so inappropriately front and center and in the mix re constantly telling Florida and Michigan Dems that our primaries wouldn't count so don't bother voting, as well as actively pushing to ensure that it stayed that way, was because they didn't think, based on polling, that they would win those states. Back when this whole thing started, the field of candidates wasn't even fully declared. I was still hoping Gore would run. Then, when it got closer to the FL primary, I was pretty much decided for Edwards, I'm ashamed to say now with hindsight, though he ended up withdrawing before the FL primary, if I remember correctly. And by then I had kind off gone of voting for him, because Hillary was the only one who fought for the FL and MI delegates and meanwhile Edwards was the FIRST one to sign the "pledge" (i.e., the pledge not to campaign in FL & MI that the party wanted them all to sign--and I don't begrudge them all, except for Hill and Dennis K, for doing so--I don't like it, but I do understand them being pressured to do that much, it is just all the ADDITIONAL stuff the Obama camp did that infuriates me, as I feel it was interfering with the integrity of the process and the party and the states should have been the only ones in the fray, not the campaigns). So, only when it got much closer to the actual primary was my vote between Dodd (good energy policy) and Clinton. Previously, I was for Gore and then Edwards was my fall-back if Gore didn't get in. So it was NOT, as some on this forum and elsewhere kept insisting, that I only was so empassioned over the delegates because I must be a Hillary supporter. It had NOTHING to do with which candidate I supported--like I said, the field wasn't even fully declared when this delegate mess started in 2007 or maybe it was even 2006, I forget. It had everything to do with the integrity of the process and the horrific nature of the party telling Florida (Florida, post-2000!) that we couldn't vote in the primary because of something the REPUGS did! WHAT?

One day I might get over it.

btw, far as I know, FL and MI still are not in compliance, primary-date-wise, and here comes 2012. Not good. :huh:

edited to add: I did ultimately end up voting for Hillary in the primary, for two reasons: 1.) she fought for FL & MI Dem votes to count (granted, this could have been as much self-interest as the Obama camp's fighting against it, but she was on the RIGHT side, so I don't care WHY she was on it, she was on it), and 2.) she had the best health care plan. But being for her was NOT why, and was NEVER why, I was so worked up about the delegates, that happened way before the field of candidates ever even came into focus, ya know? It was about the process and about the VOTERS right to have a voice in selecting our candidate. Dean should have halved the delegates and none of this would ever have happened. And if Obama had won, I'd at least feel like he really won. But now it is similar to when Bush was president. It's like, well, you're in there...but did you really win?

hangingchad - March 31, 2011 04:32 PM (GMT)
:huh: I just realized something. My position that Obama and his campaign should have stayed out of it is somewhat hypocritical because, on the other hand, I CHEERED Hillary for fighting for the Florida and Michigan Democratic voters votes' to count. However, it is different because she was fighting for what was right and the Obama camp was fighting to disenfranchise people. Still, if I believe that the issue is between the party and the states, and that the candidates should have stayed out of it, then shouldn't that apply to the one candidate who was in there fighting FOR my side of it?

Oh dear. Maybe the candidates DID have a right to voice their opinions on it, either way. Oh man. Now, three years later, I'm gonna have to think about this and get back to you.

:huh: :lol:

Texan for Gore - March 31, 2011 04:34 PM (GMT)
Well, I see you guys have been having an interesting conversation this morning. :lol: I don't have much time to comment right now, but I'll be back to weigh in later. ;)

Chad, I am glad you posted that link about Gore's position on nuclear energy. I was really wanting to know where he stood on it right now. And I am inclined to see your point of view as you expressed the differences of why Obama is supporting nuclear energy vs. Gore's past stance on it.

Well, more later.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree