The new new election thread

Even Palin’s ethics scandal has a slightly interesting twist that someone like McCain probably found endearing:

When was the last time you heard of a politician being investigated for trying to fire her own relatives?

Just out Rasmussen: Palin More Popular Than Obama and McCain

Sarah Palin's favorability rating is 10 points higher than Joe Biden's; she edges out Obama and McCain by one point. Rasmussen reports:Web Link

"A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.

The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view.

The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President.
Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year.
As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%."


Now, if Oprah would drop her boycott of Palin, the American public, particularly American women, could see an in depth interview of Palin by Americas most famous woman, what is Oprah afraid of?

I don't know Sharon/Ng/Meg/Pam, what Oprah is "afraid of" but what does the choice of a private citizen really have to do with this election?
Is Oprah really under any obligation to invite certain people on to her show? Please show me where it says that--Oprah is not a news program.

30-SECOND YOUTUBE VIDEO:

Web Link

"He's 72-years-old, has had cancer, and now wants the most stressful job in the world... In these dangerous times John McCain's choice of Vice President might be the most important choice he makes."

Mrs. Thatcher would have recognized the guns aimed at Sarah Palin as the weapons of the left with feminist trigger-pullers.
She also would have known that Mrs. Palin has less to fear from East-Coast intellectual snobs in egalitarian America than she had to fear from her own Tory base in class-prejudiced Britain.
She would have told her to stand her ground and do her homework.
Read your briefs, choose advisers with care, and, as she once said "Just be yourself, don't ever give in and they can't harm you."

It wasn't quite true, of course. She did read her briefs, did stand her ground, and in the end they pulled her down, those grandees. But she made history.

If a grocer's daughter can do it, a self-described hockey mom cannot be dismissed.

How much time and mental energy did Thatcher spend on competing in beauty pageants?

Thatcher created global warming, as a political issue. She wanted to defeat the coal miners' strike, and bring on nuclear power. I fully support nuclear power, but political blowback is always a possibility. Thus, we now have 'global warming' as a serious international issue. Ironically, Thatcher got it right, in a strange way: Nuclear is now being seen for what it is, a relatively clean source of base load electrical energy. Even Obama is talking about it in positive ways. McCain is openly supporting nuclear.

Palin is supporting domestic fossil fuel production, not surprising, since she is from Alaska. At least Alaska helps to diminish the foreign debt account. However, it is still a carbon footprint, even natural gas.

I think Palin will join McCain in supporting nuclear power. If so, I will support her. Otherwise, I don't care for moose stew.

Greg,

She'll support nuclear power if it means large federal subsidies to Alaska. She's a pork-barrel princess--which seems to be Alaska's way of doing business. (Can't figure out why they want to secede--they have it good as far as the federal government goes. It's nice to know my federal income tax is going to Alaskans. How come we don't get kick-backs for managing to provide all that new technology and the entertainment industry? I'd even give my $3,200 to the schools.)

ExBrit,

You're being disingenuous. Thatcher rose through her party and was a barrister to boot. She had to hold her own in parliamentary debates--a great thing, by the way. I swear it spares you some of the photogenic idiots we get on both sides of the party line.

I mean what if Shrub and Cheney actually had to go out and defend their choices to the opposition in an environment where questions were really asked.

That is pretty funny about global warming, though . . .

OhlonePar,

Why wait for Palin to grab the kickback on energy. We could get it here, where the most demand is.

Suppose a nuclear power plant is built within the PA city limits (e.g. the dump site). It would not only provide all of our energy, but we could sell the excess energy to provide for our economic infrastructure. Imagine all the libraries and schools and playing fields that could be supported with even one new ncular plant within the PA city limits! Simultaneously, we could become the greenist city in the state, if not the nation.

I call that a win/win.

Is Sarah a real win/win?

Are you missing something, here, OP?

Sorry Greg,

I think there are huge issues with nuclear power and safety. Cancer rates went skyrocketing with the advent of the nuclear age--and a lot of information about exposure was concealed for decades--such as Hanford shooting out radioactive iodine in the air. Washington still has the highest breast-cancer rates in the country.

Storage is another issue--there are some serious long half-lives involved. Security is yet another--Chernobyl blew because of negligence and poor maintenance. What if someone actively targeted a nuclear plant?

Nuclear energy would solve a bunch of problems, but it's not clean power.

I think ultimately, it's going to be a patchwork of solutions--among other things, we need a better grid--one that can take in power more easily from a wider variety of energy generation--you know, so that when it's shining in California, we can heat Colorado.

Conservation, also, will need to be much more widespread--geothermal heat pumps, good insulation and efficient passive cooling systems should become the norm in construction.

There was a new thread started about an ad from a former POW criticizing McCain. I posted a response to that thread and now the whole thread has been deleted by Johnson's intrepid editors. Any reason why????

OhlonePar,

You and I have been through this before.

You are the queen (or king?) of the cluster analysis. Then you site the single radiation elemental event, as in a single decay of a single element. You refuse to acknowledge that a similar model applies to any single chemical (molecular) event (e.g. plastic polymers breaking down into a single molecule of dioxin).

Basically, OP, you are a scaremonger.

If we want a better world, we will need to take certain risks. Wind energy may deplete certain bird populations, and distort wind paterns; Solar panels are full of potential single-molecule events; hybrid cars are abundant with toxics.

Thus it goes.

Howver, nuclear has such huge punch, with such a low risk, that it is a no-brainer.

450,000 people die from smoking in the USA every year, people killed by nuclear power plants, Zero.

You are exposed to more radiation living in Denver than living next to a nuclear plant, I wish people would get a education in risk analysis, probability and math.

Re Thatcher, I knew her quite well when I lived in London, I can tell you that she would full support Sarah Palin for VP, she would do as she did to me,
take her arm and say "Just be yourself, don't ever give in and they can't harm you."

I cannot understand the hatred expressed towards her and her children.

Things got pretty heated in the House of Commons but anyone who behaved like her detractors have would be thrown out on their ear from that House fore ever, why do you think they have a guy with a mace.

Historically the distance between the opposing benches was designed to be more than 2 sword lengths apart BTW.

The treatment of Sarah Palin has been shameful and will not be forgotten nor forgiven I'd wager.

The pay back will be devastating, do you think the military men and women do not read the press?

They are coming home and running for elective office.

They will not forget how the mother of one of their own is being treated.

"The treatment of Sarah Palin has been shameful and will not be forgotten nor forgiven I'd wager.

The pay back will be devastating, do you think the military men and women do not read the press?

They are coming home and running for elective office.

They will not forget how the mother of one of their own is being treated. "

Quite the hysterical, soap operish response. Was the treatment of John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2000 in So. Carolina (by his fellow republicans) any less shameful.
Basically any criticism of McCain/Palin now will elicit the above type of response from the more extreme republican elements. This is their new talking points for trying to steer people away from the real truth about their candidates

Did John McCain make the sale in St. Paul on a pro-growth economic-recovery plan?

I think he did.

The day after the speech the InTrade pay-to-play prediction markets had McCain up four points to a 43 percent probability of winning.

That’s his best score ever. Obama dropped four points to 56 percent. Over at Rasmussen, McCain recorded a bounce that closes Obama’s lead to 48-46. Pre-speech Obama was ahead 50-45.

Greg,

We have been through this before and calling me names doesn't change the fact that there are numerous issues regarding the safety of nuclear power. And it's several events.

You think it's worth the risks. I don't.

ExBrit,

You don't know that it's zero, actually because the government isn't really interesting in funding studies about the health effects from radiation.

Smoking is also a choice. I choose not to smoke. A little different than a nuclear power plant.

Elect McCain??? is right of course. Were you asleep during the unending personal attacks on the Clintons? Was it Rush Limbaugh who compared 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton to a dog?

Hey, I can't help if a pol. who thinks she should be in charge of making personal medical decisions for other women can't stand up to scrutiny when it comes to family values. Sigh, at least the right wing will shut up for a while about the evils of unwed teen-age mothers.

The hypocritical outrage about this by the Republicans--particularly after Palin's spiteful speech--is hilarious.

Just think of us as those who have not forgotten or forgiven the treatment of Hillary Clinton by the Republicans.

By the way--$12 million overnight for Barack Obama. No wonder the GOP isn't letting Palin speak.

OP, you are funny.

Can you please tell us what the "treatment" by the Republicans was of Hilary? We knocked her world view and her policy beliefs, her poorly thought out health care plan and her derision of women not like her, her co-dependence in the sexual harrassment by Bill, her tears when she was losing the nomination to Barack ( unfairly, I thought, but OMG,..tears??)

I felt and continue to feel, the same way about everyone who shares her attitude, beliefs etc. Male or female.

So, exactly how did the Republicans treat Hilary any worse than the Dems treat Palin?

Please find one time when any Republican politician, or journalist, or talk show host, questioned Hilary having only one kid...questioned any paternity or maternity of said kid, questioned her birth control methods, questioned her judgement for having one kid and working more than full time while raising said kid, questioned Bill for daring to take a job in the White House with such a young kid, or Hilary for her ability to raise said kid in the white house..

hmmm...thinking hard...can't remember any.

You are confusing issues tremendously here.

BTW, keep trouting out the "private medical decisions" phrase, as if we all agree that aborting a 6 month old is the same as cutting out an ugly wart...No longer flies

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Is Oprah Biased? Host Won't Interview Palin


But Winfrey, who publicly endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in May 2008, is being widely criticized by some fans of the show who say she's being unfair and biased.

She's being two-faced," said Dr. Cindy Grossman-Green, a pediatrician and Oprah fan from outside Philadelphia. "She initially had Obama on her show, but now that she's decided to support him, she won't have any other political candidates on."

Also...no, Rush did not call Chelsea a dog. I daresay you believe it because you believe what you have heard about Rush..without ever having heard even one hour of Rush. I daresay I, an avid listener of Rush, have heard more Air America than you have of ANY conservative talk show.

That said, here is the transcript of the show in question

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can believe the error was on purpose or not, nobody cares. But, what you don't know is that he apologized profusely for several days afterwards for the photo error...this was back in the day when he thought any media would actually report the truth.

I know you and others like you will continue to believe it was on purpose, though he never before or since has ever made fun of any kid of anyone.

Anyway, posted this in case anyone actually cared.

Perspective,

I'd say your Rush Limbaugh text speaks for itself. So, yeah, there you go. And you think that was an error? Unh-hunh. I've got a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you.

By the way, did you notice the news story where McCain's people were asked to prove their charge that the Dems were attacking Palin--and they came up with that one weak line?

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Perspective

Give me a break 1992, are you Rip Van Winlckey or some thing, we are in a war and we have the internet now.

McCain's policies meet our challenges, be courageous

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

I'm taking bets that no matter who wins in November, we have a new President in 2012, 2016, and 2020. America's problems will not be solved by imperial Presidencies (which is what our executive has evolved to).

Notice that there is almost no attention paid to the Congressional races. It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

As far as Nuclear, Oil and Coal, I think if you priced them based on their full life cycle cost, then you could have a fair market to determine your priorities. With Oil, Gas and Coal you have to include their environmental damage during extraction and burning and their carbon footprint. With Nuclear, you need to include the waste storage, environmental contamination and the inevitable accidents. It's like the Space Shuttle, experts start out predicting one out of 10,000 events but after 100 events, the real number is one out of 37. Nuclear isn't that bad but just divide two by the number of Nuclear Power plants to get a real estimate. Once you figure out the real cost, let a real market decide how to allocate your resources. This same market could apply to solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal, tidal, wind, etc. But you need to determine a realistic cost, not just the initial cost.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Anonymous,

Excellent point. I think one of the problems with the current market is that there isn't a way to incorporate long-term costs into calculating value in real time.

I once heard an interesting comment about acid rain--the government created a market for caps and exchanges--and that took care of the problem for the most part because it became more sound economically to prevent acid rain than to pay for creating it.

"But you need to determine a realistic cost, not just the initial cost." (re nuclear plants, vs. other forms of electrical generation).

1. Unlike most other electrical generators, nuclear is required to build into the price, the costs of decommisioning and storage of so-called "wastes". They must also buy insurance to provided for major contingencies (including government backed insurance packages).

2. One must also look at the realistic cost of NOT building the single major base load source of carbon-free electrical generation. For example, those of you are worried about global warming should be demanding nuclear, before the ice caps melt (what is cost of a coastline that is shrunk by rising seas?).

3. Nuclear actually could make the USA energy independent, it isn't just empty promises. It wouldn't do it all by itself, but it cannot be done without nuclear. This means that nuclear should get credit for enhancing national security.

4. If carbon credits are to be assigned (the Gore approach), then nuclear should get the vast share of them (which they sell to polluting plants, thus reducing the cost of electricity produced by nukes). The carbon reduction market highly favors nuclear, over other sournces of electricity.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

And, Greg, one cannot ignore, as greenies do, the benefits of the available energy that separates us from the animals. All the intelligence in the world won't pull a plow.

Greg,

As I said before, nuclear would solve a lot of problems--but your points don't answer my concerns--calling me a scaremongerer doesn't cut it. We can't have the occasional nuclear accident. We can't have leaks for thousands of years. We can't get terrorists near them.

Unofortunately, there's no margin for error with nuclear.

OhlonePar,

Actually, we CAN absorb a major nuclear accident, even though it is highly unlikely, with modern designs.

The real question is how can we afford NOT to take such a risk?

The benefit-to-risk ratio is so high with nuclear, that it is as close to no-brainer as it gets. BTW, Three Mile Island was a major safety success, not a failure - it was an operational failure, but it was contained.

Scaremongering (clusters of cancer, single decay event cancers) does not make a rational argument, OP, and it will not cut it, anymore.

It is clear that the American people are waking up, and rejecting the 'China Syndrome/Cancer' scaremongering.

The real scare is that we do NOT develop nuclear, using modern designs.

"And, Greg, one cannot ignore, as greenies do, the benefits of the available energy that separates us from the animals. All the intelligence in the world won't pull a plow."

Walter,

Point taken. I am not for eliminating coal as a source of electrical generation, UNITL it can be replaced with better sources, especially nuclear. However, I have my doubts that coal can (really) be made clean. However one wants to slice the pie, fossil fuels will always emit carbon-based products.

The future motive force will be electricity, not internal combusion (fossil fuel) engines. Why? Becasue electric motors are enormously efficient, and they do not, directly, produce carbon products. The problem is that electrical generation DOES produce carbon, unless it is produced by nuclear or solar or gravity - and only nuclear is a base load source.

Greg,

Radiation is tetragenic. Period. How much so? Let's put it this way, cancers more common in pilots and steward(ess)es--just because they're more exposed to higher levels of *solar* radiation.

We're not very readiation tolerant. And, as I've said before, the long-term health effects of the massive radiation exposure during the 60s have never been well studied.

We do, however, have cancer rates that skyrocketed in those areas.

I am, admittedly, wary about assurances just because there is such a history of concealing data on this subject.

Historically, we've underestimated, not overestimated, the adverse health effects of radiation exposure.

There's a lot we can do first--particularly in the area of conservation. (Not to mention I don't think we're going to have nuclear-powered cars too soon, so there's not quick swap for oil there.)

Oops, Greg,

I see you answered the car thing. Okay.

Actually, the car thing didn't make sense; an electric motor is an energy user, not an energy source.

I think Greg's idea is that you'll have an electric car that plugs into a nuclear-fueled grid.

Though that gets into the whole battery thing.

"I think Greg's idea is that you'll have an electric car that plugs into a nuclear-fueled grid."

Correct, OP. Thanks.

I agree that battery technologies are a real limiting step. However, hybrids and plug-ins are already going forward with dirty batteries (e.g. Prius). No way to stop it, at this point, unless gasoline prices drop by a lot. I think it is safe to assume that hybrids/plug-ins/all electric vehicles are here to stay. If so, we are going to need an enormous amount of new electrical generation. Alternatives will help, but they are not base load. Only nuclear can fill this gap (with a low carbon footprint).

I don't want to re-argue all the radiation/cancer stuff with you, that we have already argued (if people are interested, they can search on our previous discussions). I would only put them into the context that so many everyday things are, potentially, teratogenic, including the most toxic substance we face on a regular basis: Oxygen. Of course, we also need that compound to stay alive, thus there is a tradeoff.

Greg,

Cool. I don't really want to redo that argument either. It's a little time-consuming to pull up all those links again.

It is, indeed, about trade-offs. And we've different ideas about what kinds of trade-offs are acceptable.

So let's table it 'til some time when it becomes more of an active issue.

I can not believe the level of ignorance about the safety of nuclear power, the economics and trade offs in power generation etc and the tin foil hat theories about radiation.

I mean they could at least check wikipedia, or go to the library if they never took science in school.

I wouldn't rule out individually powered nuclear vehicles. In this case, the trade-off might be the efficiency between some sort of mechanical driving system versus an electrical conversion with electric motors. The electric motor may not be more efficient.
(This assumes that in the future we have enough political freedom such that decisions of this type are made by engineers and entrepreneurs rather than viro bureaucrats.)

"It is, indeed, about trade-offs. And we've different ideas about what kinds of trade-offs are acceptable. "

OhlonePar,

Yes, I agree.

We are unlikely to agree about nuclear power, and I can appreciate your concerns about safety.

I will continue to support nuclear, and you will continue to oppose. That is what serious debate is about.

Take care.

Greg

CalTech,

The original discussion went way past wikipedia. If you're interested you can look it up. It was heated, but we both put out a lot of information.

It's not a simple question and I don't think there's a simple answer. If you think it can be reduced to a Wikipedia entry, you're not considering all the facets to the issue.

Clearly, it's going to come up after the election since both candidates have said they'll consider it--and we'll see it then.