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.

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.

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?

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.