McCain calls concern about nuclear safety and waste “blah, blah, blah.”

mccain-burns.jpgHow little regard does Sen. McCain actually have for voters’ genuine concerns about nuclear safety and waste issues? Consider his remarks yesterday from Cedar Falls, Iowa:

“You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words. We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah.

(Hoots, hollers and applause.)

The safety of nuclear power is a “blah, blah, blah” issue? Nuclear waste is a “blah, blah, blah” issue? Heck, McCain himself opposes letting nuclear waste go through Phoenix! This would boggle the mind if we hadn’t heard so many other amazing things come out of McCain’s mouth (see The real, Luddite McCain: “The truly clean technologies don’t work”).

And no McCain rally would be complete without the mindless GOP fossil-fuel chant:

“I have news for Senator Obama, nuclear power is safe, we ought to do it now. The British, the French, the Japanese, all reprocess spent nuclear fuel. We can do that, too. And by the way, he said he would consider off shore drilling. We’ll drill off shore and we’ll drill now.”(Chants of drill baby, drill.)

On the other hand, the mere fact that McCain keeps campaigning in Iowa shows how unstrategic and uninformed the GOP nominee is. He skipped the caucuses, he (mostly) rails against farm subsidies, and virtually every political expert thinks he is completely wasting his time in the state. has him 12 points behind in the state (see here) — and they don’t even include it on their list of battleground states!!

081026 trends

McCain isn’t losing because of his thoughtless position on nuclear power — although it certainly isn’t helping him (see “Note to John McCain: Uncommitted Ohio voters just aren’t into nuclear power“) — he is losing because his campaign doesn’t understand strategy, tactics, or messaging.

Related posts:

5 Responses to McCain calls concern about nuclear safety and waste “blah, blah, blah.”

  1. Modesty says:

    Re: “McCain isn’t losing because of…”

    But there’s a feedback loop available here, too.

    The more incompetent we realize he is, the less faith we have in his proposals, choices, etc., which allows us to see their flaws, which reduces our faith in him.

    Just as pro-Palin positions are now a political liability, much of what McCain and Palin are associated with, stand for, is crashing in value.

  2. Joe Galliani says:

    I think McCain has finally figured out who his real core audience is and “blah, blah, blah” speaks directly to them in language they understand best.

    It’s the same mantra they’ve used in response to complaints about the Iraq invasion and occupation, and most importantly it’s been the extent of the Republican party’s response to climate change.

    Can McCain’s “Yada-Yada-Yada” plan for health care and the economy be fair behind?

  3. Rick C says:

    Maybe McCain could talk more about ‘Clean Coal’ and we could witness that issue also crash in value. He really is the best secret weapon to those who wish to see the dramatic reduction in CO2 based fuels they ever had.

  4. Sparky says:

    Somebody please explain to me why a Democrat can’t come out strongly for nuclear generated electricity.

    In the early 90s, why didn’t the Clinton administration allow the EBR-II project come to completion and build a test plant? We’d had the kinks worked out by now and would be building these for domestic use and export.

    Why are we not all over Thorium based Molten Salt reactors?

    Seems all the typical facts being tossed around re: nuclear are still rooted in the 70s.

    There is no shortage of proposals to build less expensive, modular plants. Far less proliferation enabled, generating far less waste. Designs that can consume some of the present waste. Designs that can generate power from existing fuel reserves for hundreds of years.

    Nuclear energy yield is far to compelling for one to just sit on the facts of the 70s. I don’t purchase a PC based on 70s info … nor should we be doing the same with our energy infrastructure.

    Nuclear deserves an equal place at the table, along with all the other low CO2 alternatives.

  5. G.R.L. Cowan says:

    Somebody please explain to me why a Democrat can’t come out strongly for nuclear generated electricity.

    Some can. If they’re genuinely for the little guy, they do. If they’re for a well-paid civil-servant voting base, they don’t, because nuclear energy deprives this base of natural gas royalties and taxes.