Okay, I am no plumber making more than $250,000 a year [Note to self: You picked the wrong occupation. Note to my plumber: Are you sure that I need gold pipes?]
But I know a losing debate performance when I see one — as do the American people. A CBS instapoll of uncommitted voters gave the debate to Obama 53% to 22%. A CNN poll gave it to Obama 58% to 31% and similar results were found by every focus group, incuding the one Frank Luntz (!) ran for Fox news, where not a single person thought McCain had won. Luntz said: “None had made a decision to support Sen. Obama before the debate, but more than half supported him after the debate. It was a good night for Barack Obama.”
Ouch.
You may find it hard to believe, but McCain actually has a serious debate coach. If the debate had been abstractly scored on points, McCain might have at least tied, since he employed the standard debate tactic of keeping some of his most substantive attacks for the very end of the back-and-forths, where they went unanswered. But McCain doesn’t need a debate coach. He needs a messaging coach. Even uber-centrist David Gergen said McCain “looked angry. It was an exercise in anger management up there…. The looks and the disdain and the contempt and the anger that he felt was palpable.”
Presidential debates are fundamentally won on two core character tests. First, does the candidates appear to be a plausible commander in chief? Second, can I stomach 4 or 8 years of listening to this person? Both candidates crossed the first threshold, but only one crossed the second.
Finally, we have the answers to Bob Schieffer’s big question about “energy and climate control.” McCain believes nuclear power is an issue that will win him votes. It ain’t (see “Note to John McCain: Uncommitted Ohio voters just aren’t into nuclear power“). He used the word “nuclear” six times, and made it a core part of his response to Schieffer’s query: “Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?”
We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 new nuclear plants, power plants, right away. We can store and we can reprocess.
It’s kind of sad that one of the two people who might be the next president says this — it would be even sadder if he believed it. Nuclear power, of course, doesn’t even substitute for oil. It might some day if we had an equally aggressive government strategy to push plug-in hybrids into the market, but McCain does not (see “McCain proposes another energy gimmick, Part 1 — pointless battery prize. Is this another $300M to ExxonMobil?“). And it is exceedingly unlikely that more than a handful of these nuclear plants would be built in 7 to 10 years, so they are simply non-factors in the answer to this question (see “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power, Part 1“).
Sen. Obama will tell you, in the — as the extreme environmentalists do, it has to be safe.
Look, we’ve sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Sen. Obama, no problem.
So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that’s hurting rather badly.
So I think we can easily, within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don’t achieve our independence.
Obama’s responded as follows:
I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that’s about a realistic timeframe.
And this is the most important issue that our future economy is going to face. Obviously, we’ve got an immediate crisis right now. But nothing is more important than us no longer borrowing $700 billion or more from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia. It’s mortgaging our children’s future.
Now, from the start of this campaign, I’ve identified this as one of my top priorities and here is what I think we have to do.
Number one, we do need to expand domestic production and that means, for example, telling the oil companies the 68 million acres that they currently have leased that they’re not drilling, use them or lose them.
And I think that we should look at offshore drilling and implement it in a way that allows us to get some additional oil. But understand, we only have three to four percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil, which means that we can’t drill our way out of the problem.
That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal. These have been priorities of mine since I got to the Senate, and it is absolutely critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that’s built not in Japan and not in South Korea, but built here in the United States of America.
We invented the auto industry and the fact that we have fallen so far behind is something that we have to work on.
If you saw the debate on CNN, which showed the real-time reaction of men and women, then you know that Obama scored some of his highest responses here.
People are hungry for positive leadership, especially on energy. Every time of the candidates talk about it, especially Obama, the higher the response.
Whoever wins the presidency will clearly have a mandate to take strong action on energy — and that may be the best news of all to come out of these debates.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
How fitting that while a few European nations who most likely have never believed in strong action on energy and climate are floating proposals to water down EU energy climate policy, the US is ready and able to take the lead! Pretty soon the EU will be scrambling to keep up.
Well being that I am in fact Joe the Blogger I’d like to weigh in on the notion that the US Navy knows what to do with nuclear waste and knows how to safely handle nuclear reactors. That’s a bigger lie than McCain claiming he’s not George Bush’s ballwasher.
In fact, if you do any research, you’ll learn that the US Navy has a lousy and erratic record handling their nuclear powered ships and weapons. They’ve spilled and leaked radioactive waste across the seven seas.
This record was widely known during the Reagan years when those of us in the Alliance for Survival and The Coalition for a Nuclear Free Harbor used the Navy’s own records to testify at city, county, state and federal hearings and publicize how dangerous the Navy’s practices were. The Navy is no better today.
I wrote about this in my August 11 2008 post, “Funniest. Candidate. Ever. McComedian In The House”
http://creativegreenius.wordpress.com/ 2008/ 08/ 11/ funniest-candidate-ever-mccomedian-in-the-house/
“…And also the story of how just four days ago the Navy warned the country of Japan that one of our US Navy nuclear submarines may have had radioactive leaks during recent port calls in Japan’s south, the Japanese Foreign Ministry reported Saturday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396465,00.html
This leakage radioactive news comes just weeks before the U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington is due to arrive in Yokosuka, just south of Tokyo. That nuclear powered carrier was originally supposed to arrive in Japan this month but suffered a fire aboard the vessel in May.
Do you have milk snorting out your nose yet over how funny this is? Or are you just one of those reality-based blowhards who are going to quote facts and government studies like the Navy’s 50 year history of nuclear incidents and accidents that showed a total of over 1000 accidents and incidents? How boring YOU must be at parties.”
http://oc.itgo.com/kitsap/nuclear/clymer.htm
http://prop1.org/2000/accident/1989/8907a1.htm
So if you want to know how well the United States would handle 45 new nuclear power plants all you need do is look at how the pros in the US Navy have done it over the years.
I submit to you that John McCain’s experience with how reckless the Navy has been with their nuclear power and its waste is the reason he’s against allowing any nuclear waste to be transported through his state of Arizona.
Last but not least, McCain’s team hasn’t even been smart enough to learn the lessons of Mike Deavers, Ronald Reagan’s master image-shaper who knew that when it came to television the way his man looked was far more important than what he was actually saying. Deavers knew that the lasting impression was the picture, not the sound.
If you watched that debate last night with the sound off you saw an angry, sarcastic and very unhappy man with bad teeth and bad skin sitting at the same desk as the next President of the United States.
Never mind McCain not being Bush – he should be more worried at this point about not being McGovern in 19 days.
Nice post, Joe, good to see an emerging decisiveness from where it counts for the upcoming Election..
Interesting, too, B.O.’s answer in covering the remotely sensible side of his opponent’s view before then generating that buzz on real change.. like new tech etc..
Joe the Blogger’s comments also very illuminating.. re navy nuke-powered.. this has a special relevance down here in NZ when a previous PM stood up to Secretary Schultz, and earlier Bush administration figures about nuke-powerd ship visits..
Back to you, Joe, folks here in the climate side say as many as possib folks go visit a post I did [ else click my url ] called The Skinny on Banking: Decade of Drama [2]. Another reason or so for out of M.E., then as I’m being told today its enough for any ‘denier’ to go take their epiphany moment
regards
hi Joe, nice post, interesting emergence of media decisiveness at least from this end.
have something for your ‘inactivist’ resort. drop by for the skinny [2]
“Barack Obama for President”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2008/ 10/ 16/ AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Pretty outstanding endorsement.
@Joe the Blogger – As Rod the Blogger and former engineer officer on a US nuclear powered submarine, I have to challenge your distortions.
First of all, let me start by telling you that the US Navy is not perfect and is manned by ordinary human beings who make mistakes. We also operate equipment that is not perfect, but designed and built by similarly ordinary human beings.
However, compared to most human organizations that I have encountered, the US Navy’s nuclear power program is decisively and almost self destructively honest, especially with ourselves. We treat every difference from the norm as an incident worthy of a “green table” investigation. We engage in root cause analysis and endless efforts for self improvement. It is a hard life in an unforgiving environment – after all, we operate in a world where very small errors can lead to an uncomfortable experience of “water in the people tank”. We avoid that at all costs.
We also recognize that we carry some energetic and rather dangerous material on board. Without it, we could not function; the alternatives simply would not do the job. At one time, braver men than I went to sea and tried sealing themselves up for a few hours at a time with just a lead acid storage battery charged by burning noxious fossil fuel on the surface a couple of times per day. Those brave sailors did not even have enough spare energy to provide shower water.
I much preferred the comforts of sealing myself up in a nuclear powered vessel with a safe reactor that could provide plenty of power for most of the comforts of home.
You are correct that we have had plenty of incidents, and that we occasionally have had minor releases of radioactive material. However, Admiral Rickover was perfectly correct when he told Congress that he would be willing to drink a glass of water containing the amount of radioactive material that we release each year. I would be willing to do the same, even including the recently highly publicized but exceedingly minor releases.
No one has been killed or even injured by exposure to radioactive materials as the result of an accident on board a US nuclear powered vessel. We have even had the unfortunate experience of driving one of our submarines into an underwater mountain at high speed. After that collision with an immovable object, the plant kept on operating and got the ship safely into port. (There were people injured and one killed by that collision, but their injuries were as a result of banging into physical objects with the abrupt change in inertia.)
Sorry Nuclear Rod – but I’ve got enough experience and history under my belt to know better than to trust or believe the US Navy’s self-serving and far from objective opinion of themselves or their actions. And when I combine the confidence and faith I have in the US Navy along with the track record and truthiness of the US nuclear industry I keep getting a mental image of Homer Simpson in an admiral’s hat trying to sell me something I don’t need. Forgive me if I roll my eyes in John Sidney McCain III fashion at your pat on the back for yourself and your mates. I’m not buying it and neither is the rest of the voting public. With Crash McCain as your poster boy I hope you have better luck than his first wife did in getting what you think you have coming to you.
@Joe – You are making a broad and incorrect assumption with regard to my political preference. I have already voted and it was not for the person you mention.
What experience do you have with the nuclear navy?
Can you tell me which part of my comment you believe is untrue?
Anyone who refers to a cartoon character as any kind of reflection of the character of the very real people who operate power plants is misguided and terribly uninformed.
I noticed from your web site that you are a fan of large scale wind power, but that you also seem to like to visit the mountains and forests. Have you ever taken a look at sites like THE CEFN CROES PHOTO-GALLERY which provides a photo record of the installation of a large wind farm in Wales?
How do you reconcile your support for industrial scale wind generation against your love of the outdoors?
Rod – I submit to you that based on the continuing track record, Homer Simpson is the perfect representation for the workers in the nuclear industry – especially those who work at nuclear power plants. And because he is, I am just one of many who have correctly made this connection.
The nuclear workers who you champion may be real people, but their performance on the job involves plenty of faking – as in safety records, job performance and quality control. Instead of arguing for higher standards and more compliance you offer them a “Heck of a job, Brownie” endorsement. Forgive me if I still hold my very low opinion of these workers.
You are clearly a lobbyist on behalf of nuclear power, but based on your success rate, not a very persuasive one. Your rant against wind power fails to move or convince me either.
It seems to me that we could take all the objectivity in your arguments on behalf of more nuclear power and a competent nuclear Navy – stuff them into the navel of a flea, and still have room for the nuclear waste that can be safely stored in Yucca mountain. (with apologies to Fred Allen).