Republican strategy re: oil spill

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

So a lot of Republicans like Limbaugh and Haley Barbour are trying their best to convince everyone that the current oil spill is not a big deal. They are saying things like oil is as natural as the sea water and other unbelievable shit.

However, the government response to the oil spill seems like one thing that the Repubs could really hammer Obama with in the election. Not that the government could really do anything about the spill, mind you, but Repubs could run a lot of misleading ads blaming the whole thing on the democrats.

It would seem that two of the Republicans' biggest knee-jerk reactions are working against each other here. The first is the reflexive defense of big business. The other is the criticism of anything Obama does. I can see an ad where Obama says "I was going to do something about the oil spill, but then Rush told me that oil was natural as the sea water, so I figured everything was A-OK."

In the end though, just like with everything else, Republican voters will be too dense to notice the hypocrisy, or will notice it and apply their baffling (to me) ability to cling doggedly to mutually exclusive beliefs.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

However, the government response to the oil spill seems like one thing that the Repubs could really hammer Obama with in the election. Not that the government could really do anything about the spill, mind you, but Repubs could run a lot of misleading ads blaming the whole thing on the democrats.

And then you'd see a non-stop loop of Palin et al screaming "Drill Baby, Drill". I think the strategists have looked at all sides of this, and have come down on the "Oil is just as natural as butterfly wings and babies kisses" side.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

And then you'd see a non-stop loop of Palin et al screaming "Drill Baby, Drill". I think the strategists have looked at all sides of this, and have come down on the "Oil is just as natural as butterfly wings and babies kisses" side.

Ah, you must have missed the latest update from cuckooville; Palin tweeted that the oil spill proved "Drill baby drill" to be correct, because she was always referring to drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge when she said it.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Here's one Republican solution that will work: a massive expansion of nuclear power. The French already produce 73% of their energy from nuclear fission-I can't see why we can't do that except we are stopped by idiots who think an American power plant is equivalent to that of a Soviet one.

[MEBuckner]

While the idea of nuclear-powered roadsters is not without a certain retro-futuristic charm--I bet an atomic-powered car would also be able to fly!--there are certain practical details to be worked out.

Oil is overwhelmingly used for transportation fuel like gasoline. Nuclear power--and I'm not disagreeing we need to pursue it more aggressively in light of the global warming issue--is used to make electricity for the power grid. (And the chief problems with purely electrically powered cars aren't so much the availability of electricity as they are things like battery re-charge times vs. the time it takes to fill up a gas tank, cruising range of batteries vs. a gas tank, and toxic byproducts from battery production and disposal.)

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

While the idea of nuclear-powered roadsters is not without a certain retro-futuristic charm--I bet an atomic-powered car would also be able to fly!--there are certain practical details to be worked out.

You're referring to the Ford Nucleon, no doubt.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin

You're referring to the Ford Nucleon, no doubt.

That's for greenwimps! I want a four-wheeled equivalent of a Project Orion spaceship! Hurled down the road by nuclear explosions! YEEE-HAAAWWW!

[Superhal]

Highly unlikely. Because "oil" is synonymous with Republicans, I think the lay person would think the oil spill is the republican's fault anyway, or another leftover from the Bush campaign.

I haven't read about the issue at all, and I would say that it is about 90% likely to be Bush' fault.

[DWMarch]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

That's for greenwimps! I want a four-wheeled equivalent of a Project Orion spaceship! Hurled down the road by nuclear explosions! YEEE-HAAAWWW!

This sounds all fine and good until you try to back into a parking spot...

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Here's one Republican solution that will work: a massive expansion of nuclear power. The French already produce 73% of their energy from nuclear fission-I can't see why we can't do that except we are stopped by idiots who think an American power plant is equivalent to that of a Soviet one.

That's a bipartisan solution these days. Yeah, there are some stragglers that are dragging their heels against it, but nuclear will be expanded.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Here's one Republican solution that will work: a massive expansion of nuclear power. The French already produce 73% of their energy from nuclear fission-I can't see why we can't do that except we are stopped by idiots who think an American power plant is equivalent to that of a Soviet one.

"Thankfully you turned what could have been another Cheyrnobyl into a mere Three Mile Island."
-Mr. Burns, The Simpsons

Maybe those "idiots" are having a hard time actually believing that nuclear power plants as "safe" as they have been told after seeing how "safe" offshore oil rigs are?


I don't follow the conservative news programs as much as you people, however the very obvious Republican strategy is to paint Obama as if his response has been ineffectual and his leadership lacking.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Again, it's not obvious. The theme of the Obama Administration, for those who have been paying attention, is fixing problems the Republicans caused. As Superhal notes, for even the most knee-jerkingly defensive conservative, oil is practically synonymous with Republican, and criticizing Obama's handling of the spill will invariably lead to, "well, you shouldn't have fucked it up in the first place."

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Again, it's not obvious. The theme of the Obama Administration, for those who have been paying attention, is fixing problems the Republicans caused. As Superhal notes, for even the most knee-jerkingly defensive conservative, oil is practically synonymous with Republican, and criticizing Obama's handling of the spill will invariably lead to, "well, you shouldn't have fucked it up in the first place."

I don't know that the average layperson would blame the Republicans at all. People are looking at 1) who and what caused the spill in the first place? and 2) how is the capping of the well and cleanup being handled?

And also keep in mind that all the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico are Red States.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Americans have a strange notion that what happens to the rest of the country is their business. Look at the Pit thread about the "mosque" being built kind-of-sort-of-near Ground Zero.

[Chronos]

Here's one Republican solution that will work: a massive expansion of nuclear power. The French already produce 73% of their energy from nuclear fission-I can't see why we can't do that except we are stopped by idiots who think an American power plant is equivalent to that of a Soviet one.

While support for nuclear power is bipartisan, so is opposition to it. True, there are still poorly-educated hippies out there who think that nuclear power is inherently more dangerous than what it would replace, but there are also right-wingers who are convinced that anything other than actual nuclear weapons involving radioactive material will be stolen by terrorists and turned into a bomb.

msmith537, you say that as if reducing a disaster to a mere Three Mile Island is a bad thing. If only the average Interstate car crash, for example, were reduced to the severity of the Three Mile Island disaster, the world would be a better place.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Chronos

While support for nuclear power is bipartisan, so is opposition to it. True, there are still poorly-educated hippies out there who think that nuclear power is inherently more dangerous than what it would replace, but there are also right-wingers who are convinced that anything other than actual nuclear weapons involving radioactive material will be stolen by terrorists and turned into a bomb.

msmith537, you say that as if reducing a disaster to a mere Three Mile Island is a bad thing. If only the average Interstate car crash, for example, were reduced to the severity of the Three Mile Island disaster, the world would be a better place.

There are plenty of educated hippies who know Obama actually alloted money for nuclear power. During the ten years or so it takes to build one ,we may get past that poor designed , expensive crappy energy system and spend money in renewable energy and conservation. That is the hope.

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Again, it's not obvious. The theme of the Obama Administration, for those who have been paying attention, is fixing problems the Republicans caused. As Superhal notes, for even the most knee-jerkingly defensive conservative, oil is practically synonymous with Republican, and criticizing Obama's handling of the spill will invariably lead to, "well, you shouldn't have fucked it up in the first place."

It doesn't look like fixing the problems of the Bush Administration was their top priority.


Rolling Stone article with some pretty bad news about Salazar and Obama and BP

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Chronos

If only the average Interstate car crash, for example, were reduced to the severity of the Three Mile Island disaster, the world would be a better place.

I think that deserves repeating: If the average automobile accident on an Interstate highway had the same amount of harmful effects as the 'Three Mile Island disaster', the world would be a better place.

Let's set up a hypothetical situation to drive this home: On March 28, 1979, the day Three Mile Island's Unit 2 suffered its catastrophic failure, Tom, Dick, and Harry were at work. Tom, a farmer in Dauphin County, was harrowing his fields preparatory to spring planting, outdoors without protective clothing one mile downwind from TMI. Dick worked a normal shift without incident at a coal-fired power plant in Indiana. And Harry, a professional accountant, spent the day working on an audit in his office in a brick building in Denver. Of the three, the one whose exposure to ionizing radiation and carcinogens was the lowest was Tom.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

I think that deserves repeating: If the average automobile accident on an Interstate highway had the same amount of harmful effects as the 'Three Mile Island disaster', the world would be a better place.

Let's set up a hypothetical situation to drive this home: On March 28, 1979, the day Three Mile Island's Unit 2 suffered its catastrophic failure, Tom, Dick, and Harry were at work. Tom, a farmer in Dauphin County, was harrowing his fields preparatory to spring planting, outdoors without protective clothing one mile downwind from TMI. Dick worked a normal shift without incident at a coal-fired power plant in Indiana. And Harry, a professional accountant, spent the day working on an audit in his office in a brick building in Denver. Of the three, the one whose exposure to ionizing radiation and carcinogens was the lowest was Tom.

I've read studies that state the radiation leak at 3 Mile Island was strong and pockets of birth defects and cancers have resulted. They state that the idea that nobody died as a result of the incident is false.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

I've read studies that state the radiation leak at 3 Mile Island was strong and pockets of birth defects and cancers have resulted. They state that the idea that nobody died as a result of the incident is false.

It would be even more surprising if birth defects were distributed uniformly.

50 years from now people will look back on the anti-nuclear folks as similar to the collaborators in France: "Daddy what did you do when the earth was warming due to greenhouse gases?".

With the exception of Chernobyl, there simply have not been many adverse effects from nuclear power. Compare that to all the deaths from coal mining and oil exploration, gas leaks in houses, accidents transporting oil and gasoline, premature deaths from asthma exacerbated by air pollution, etc.

People opposing nuclear power twist the truth every bit as much as Palin did about healthcare. It's shameful. Let's at least have a reasoned debate.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

50 years from now people will look back on the anti-nuclear folks as similar to the collaborators in France:

In the very last sentence of the novel, it's revealed that HITLER is a lump of ANTHRACITE!!!

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

It would be even more surprising if birth defects were distributed uniformly.

50 years from now people will look back on the anti-nuclear folks as similar to the collaborators in France: "Daddy what did you do when the earth was warming due to greenhouse gases?".

With the exception of Chernobyl, there simply have not been many adverse effects from nuclear power. Compare that to all the deaths from coal mining and oil exploration, gas leaks in houses, accidents transporting oil and gasoline, premature deaths from asthma exacerbated by air pollution, etc.

People opposing nuclear power twist the truth every bit as much as Palin did about healthcare. It's shameful. Let's at least have a reasoned debate.

Nuke takes a very long time to build. It is very expensive to build. the energy it produces is not price competitive. It produces waste that can not be handled. What is being twisted? They can not buy insurance. Wonder why that is?
Alternative energy should be vigorously pushed. Want a nuke plant.? Put it in your back yard. I have one 25 miles away, that has been down more than it has been working.

[Chronos]

All power plants take a long time and are expensive to produce. The energy nuclear produces is price competitive, especially if you charge coal for the cost of disposing of waste. Nuclear waste is much more easily handled than carbon dioxide. Nuke plants are a kind of alternative energy.

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

I've read studies that state the radiation leak at 3 Mile Island was strong and pockets of birth defects and cancers have resulted. They state that the idea that nobody died as a result of the incident is false.

Do you have a cite for this? The "studies" you alude to are probably not actual peer-reviewed studies, but anomaly hunting by conspiracy theorists - or at least people trying to prove a case.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Nuke takes a very long time to build. It is very expensive to build. the energy it produces is not price competitive. It produces waste that can not be handled. What is being twisted? They can not buy insurance. Wonder why that is?
Alternative energy should be vigorously pushed. Want a nuke plant.? Put it in your back yard. I have one 25 miles away, that has been down more than it has been working.

Bolding mine.

I find it really adorable that whenever some company does something to save a buck that would harm the environment/people/etc. gonzo is OUTRAGED! OUTRAGED!!!! at their heartless evil profit motive. But suddenly when opposing nuclear power, money is now a big deal and saving it at the expense of the environment and people is just the right thing to do.

I'd love to have a nuke plant in my back yard, btw. I will live on top of fucking yucca mountain if that's what it takes to get people to start being reasonable about our future and not fucking the world and humanity because they're luddites.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Chronos

msmith537, you say that as if reducing a disaster to a mere Three Mile Island is a bad thing. If only the average Interstate car crash, for example, were reduced to the severity of the Three Mile Island disaster, the world would be a better place.

It's actually a Mr Burns quote from The Simpsons.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to consider it a panacea for our energy problems.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Do you have a cite for this? The "studies" you alude to are probably not actual peer-reviewed studies, but anomaly hunting by conspiracy theorists - or at least people trying to prove a case.



Bolding mine.

I find it really adorable that whenever some company does something to save a buck that would harm the environment/people/etc. gonzo is OUTRAGED! OUTRAGED!!!! at their heartless evil profit motive. But suddenly when opposing nuclear power, money is now a big deal and saving it at the expense of the environment and people is just the right thing to do.

I'd love to have a nuke plant in my back yard, btw. I will live on top of fucking yucca mountain if that's what it takes to get people to start being reasonable about our future and not fucking the world and humanity because they're luddites.

I have one near mine. The Fermi plant. Look it up. It never got to full power, has had many incidents, has released bad chemicals and gases and has been shut down over and over. I am not outraged at all. I know people can be convinced of something that is not true with enough propaganda. I am used to it. I know you guys listen to mainstream news who are corporate supported. Of course you can accept everything they say. The government has to support construction and insure them. Why? It takes 10 years to build them. And don't you just love the cost overruns? I am not outraged. I just think nuke is not the answer.