Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate?

Insteresting article in NY Times about Obama having lied in Iowa about having passed piece of legislation (which never passed and which he had to rewrite over and over to make it less threatening to Republicans and to some of his major campaign contributors).
The title is Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/pol itics/03exelon.html?_r=1&ex=13597812 00&en=dc32a822488c8617&ei=5088&a mp;partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss& ;oref=slogin

Please, before commenting on this item, read the article (link provided).

Excerpts from the article: When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause. Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” “I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate. […] The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money. 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. […] 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. […] By Mike McIntire The New York Times, January 3, 2008

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Nuclear Leaks, obama (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Re: Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama

Obama has also LIED repeatedly about his health care plan - telling audiences it covers everyone.

by annefrank 2008-02-03 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Leaks and Response

I am very worried about the Democratic Party.  Barack Obama is running on so many lies and nobody cares.  This should also be a dairy on kos.  Anyone?

by Regan 2008-02-03 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Leaks and Response
DailyO and the MSM aren't interested in Obama's lies.
Move along...
by annefrank 2008-02-03 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Sen

exelon axelrod

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-03 06:01AM | 0 recs
surprise, surprise

What a surprise: A myDD piece which hits Obama with a narrow understanding of the issues at hand.

The diarists writes about the bill:
"... he had to rewrite over and over to make it less threatening to Republicans and to some of his major campaign contributors"

All legislation is rewritten numerous times in order to make it politically palatable in a hostile legislative environment. It does not mean that the author is against his own bill, or is an easy 'sellout.'

Passing legislation is like towing an iceberg through warm, tropical waters.  At the end you're happy if you end up with an icecube.  It's how the system works.  If you do get your icecube, you just hope you can return to make the law better in future sessions.

BTW - You fail to mention that he held up a presidential nomination in an attempt to get his bill passed.

That doesn't sound like the action of someone who is bought by the interests working against his bill.

by Damien in Texas 2008-02-03 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: surprise, surprise

The fact that he held up a presidential nominee is commendable, but how long did that last, and what actions followed? yes, you have to make legislature palatable to all in order for it to pass. I gave the link to the article so people could read the entire matter and judge for themselves. and you have done so, and obviously have no problem with Obama lying to his followers in Iowa to score a cheap political point and aggrandize himself to the electorate when he stated that he had this law passed, which is not true.

by LovingIT 2008-02-03 03:40PM | 0 recs
No.

Dick Cheney watered down existing energy laws and regs.

Obama was working his bill so that he could get it passed.

There's a huge difference!

Most bills in Congress or your local legislature have a similar story to the one presented in this Times piece.  

by Damien in Texas 2008-02-03 07:18AM | 0 recs
his bill wasn't a bad bill

It was a step in the right direction- which as I mentioned before-- is the way most legislation gets done, particularly in hostile environments.

(I know. I work on passing progressive legislation through the TX House.)

As for the lying / misstatement,  I cant defend that.

by Damien in Texas 2008-02-03 08:08AM | 0 recs
NY Times

I wouldn't take anything the NY Times prints seriously without a LOT of fact checking and a very, very, very critical look.

For some reason I've been looking at their cover online for the last few days and they are running a front page anti-Dem candidate daily. They rotate between Clinton and Obama. Never anything substantial there and they aren't doing the same to the Repub candidates.

Now I wished I had saved screenshots of their front page.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-03 09:20AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------