Don’t get too excited. He’s opposed nuclear for all sorts of PC leftist reasons in the past. He and Kyl were the deciding vote against Domenici efforts to reduce the regulatory hurdles in 2003 to forge ahead on new reactors. He purportedly opposed him because of loan guarantees, falling into the Dem hyperbole (”If every single project went into default, it might cost billions). Those numbers are dwarfed by the amounts he has suggested spending in the name of junk science or technologies that don’t exist yet. Back in 1991, he was among seven “conservation-minded senators” that wrote a letter to GHWB blasting his energy policy (which placed a heavy emphasis on oil/gas exploration and greater dependence on nuclear power) because it had deleted a section offering tax incentives for renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) and conservation standards. (According to one article, “The letter points out that better conservation would not only reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil but would improve air quality by releasing fewer pollutants.”) The conservation minded senators? The usual gang, mostly: McCain, Chafee, Jeffords, , Specter, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), David Durenberger (MN)and Bill Cohen.
I think the only reason he is touting it now is that some incentive dollars are included in the global warming bills. So... if you buy into his cap and trade program, that is estimated to cost the U.S. between 1 and 5 TRILLION, he’ll give ya a few billion for a nuke reactor. Ain’t that generous?
This guy could tell me that Jesus Christ was going to come and save us all tomorrow, and my reaction would be about the same as a cow in the middle of chewing her cudd.
I’d just go about my business realizing he’s been a pretender, he is a pretender and will always be a pretender... unless, once in the Oval Office he stops the pretense and does what he has seemed to be driven to do since holding public office, rule from the Ted Kennedy side of the isle.
You may have noticed I din't change my tagline because of this thread!!!