Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sloginAn above-the-fold front page article, complete with a photo of nuclear power plants looming over homes, that tells us that:
--Obama has contributors in the nuclear energy industry
--As a U.S. Senator he introduced legislation to require nuclear energy plants to notify state and local officials when there is any kind of a leak, even one that is below federally acceptable levels
--The repug-controlled Congress pushed back, including committee chairman, industry lapdog, and all-around maniac James Inhofe
--Several times Obama revised the legislation, weakening it in an attempt to create a bill he could get passed
--from the article:
Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.
Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that “it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.”
<snip>
Others say that turning the whole matter over to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as Mr. Obama’s revised bill would have done, played into the hands of the nuclear power industry, which they say has little to fear from the regulators. Mr. Obama seemed to share those concerns when he told a New Hampshire newspaper last year that the commission “is a moribund agency that needs to be revamped and has become a captive of the industry it regulates.”--Obama mistakenly said on the campaign trail (once?) that he had passed nuclear legislation. This is, of course, untrue. The legislation only passed out of committee, it never became law.
--Obama has reintroduced the revised legislation.
This is page one news? A congress member getting campaign contributions from industry is not exactly news at all.
In a repug Congress, Obama being unable to pass legislation strengthening regulation against industry is front page news to the Times?
Obama tried several times to revise the legislation to get it passed. This is front page news to the Times?
Obama was wrong when he said on the campaign trail that he had passed nuclear legislation. It's hard to believe this would be intentional. Candidates today know that every single word they utter is monitored by their opposition. It's unlikely Obama would knowingly say something that could so easily be shown to be false. My guess would be he was referring to getting the bill through committee. Again, this is front page news that a candidate said something that was wrong? At most, this is usually relegated to a small fact-check article buried in the middle of the paper.
This article, two days before New Yorkers vote, brought to you by the same newspaper who gave us the Iraq war, seems nothing more than a large campaign donation from the Times to Hillary. Once again the Times shames itself.