Why did Obama water down this nuclear power bill?

[jackson_dem]

This is disturbing. We should not jump to conclusions but this is another example of the need for vetting Obama. Did he water this down because of the contributions he has gotten from this industry or because he was being pragamatic and settled for what was achievable? Let's hope Obamites can explain this. We know they know the handful of bad bills in Hillary and Edwards' records. Do they know of the bad ones in Obama's closet?

-snip-

Published: February 3, 2008

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

-snip-

In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=f2cec53f8b5de3bc&ex=1359694800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[jackson_dem]

1. No one knows Obama's record?

[BootinUp]

2. Heres the part that caught my eye.

But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory.

In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.

In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

By then, the task force had already concluded that “existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate.”

The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.

[Flabbergasted]

3. I have to admit that this is becoming extremely troubling.

It seems Obama's support network is being revealed. I believe this is going to blow up into a major scandal if he wins the nod. I'm speaking more specifically about his connections to the nuclear industry.

Until recently I was bound to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but this needs to be dealt with.

[jackson_dem]

4. You mean the apparent pattern of Obama revising bills to the liking of special interests?

[Flabbergasted]

6. No, I mean his apparent connections to the nuclear industry itself...

Even worse if something does become revealed that he is connected to this guy: Nadhmi Auchi.

"The payment, disclosed in court papers, is the first time that Mr Obama’s long-serving bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian immigrant to the United States, has been linked to Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of Britain’s richest men. The relationship is a potential embarrassment for Mr Obama, who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a central plank of his campaign."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3284825.ece


This really has the potential to sink Obama. If a connection is made between Obama and Auchi, he is in big trouble. Obama's campaign of "hope and change" can be easilly derailed if his name is connected to a corrupt "Iraqi" billionaire. Even guilt by association trumpeted by the media would be devastating especially considering Obama's middle name. Auchi has dealt with Saddam. None of this may be credible in the end however this is a very easy way to swiftboat Obama.

Thoughts?

[Flabbergasted]

7. also

just speculation of what could be used against Obama....



According to a May 2004 U.S. Defense Department report to the inspector general and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, a former financier and close associate of Saddam Hussein, Nadhmi Auchi, has "engaged in unlawful activities" such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein."

In addition, the report noted that Auchi arranged "for significant theft from the UN Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq in violation of UN and other International Export Control Regimes."

But the U.S. liberation of Iraq has done little to put Auchi out of business. According to the official DoD report, during the U.S. occupation Auchi has organized "an elaborate scheme to take over and control the post-war cellular phone system in Iraq."

http://www.pehi.eu/organisations/introduction/2005_02_28_Newsmax_Nadhmi_Auchi.htm

[Straight Shooter]

5. "new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations"

Sounds like something Reagan or bush would do.

[debbierlus]

8. Obama is a corporatist

He would buckle more then Clinton.

[BootinUp]

9. Apparently on economic issues

at least to me, he appears to the slightly right of Clinton. On social issues, I think a similar case can be made because of his appeals to the Southern Christians. Of course he is careful to couch these appeals in rhetoric, but I do believe even rhetoric is an indication how one would govern.

In the case of the energy bill and this nuke reg bill, there is no question but that he is to the right of Clinton and appears to settle for de-regulation at a time we should be doing some re-regulation.