For more information please see the invitation below or the Reid Victory Fund page; http://reidvictoryfund.com/page/content/goodfight.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22

WHO:
Gov. Howard Dean

WHAT:
Dina Titus for Congress Volunteer Meet & Greet

WHERE:
3711 East Sunset Road, Suites C4- C8
Las Vegas, NV 89120

WHEN:
TOMORROW - Thursday, October 23rd at 11:00 AM PST

* For more information, please contact Michael Czin at CzinM@dnc.org or (202) 863-8148.

John McCain's campaign has directed $175,000 to the firm of a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states.

According to campaign finance records, a joint committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the RNC and the the California Republican Party, made a $175,000 payment to the group Lincoln Strategy in June for purposes of "registering voters." The managing partner of that firm is Nathan Sproul, a renowned GOP operative who has been investigated on multiple occasions for suppressing Democratic voter turnout, throwing away registration forms and even, once, spearheading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots so as to hinder the Democratic ticket.

More from the Sproul file:

Indeed, Sproul's history is filled with allegations of political misdeeds. During the 2004 election, Sproul & Associates (the former name of Lincoln Strategy) was accused of attempting to destroy forms collected by Democratic voters in Nevada. That same year in Oregon, Sproul & Associates allegedly instructed canvassers to only accept Republican registration forms in addition to destroying those turned in by Democrats.

In Minnesota, meanwhile, Sproul's firm was accused of actually firing workers who brought back Democratic registration forms, while other canvassers were allegedly paid "$13 an hour, with the $3 bonus for every Bush, undecided or Ralph Nader voter registration." Similar problems related to Sproul & Associates popped up in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Conservative activists, operatives and officeholders are anxious about John McCain’s Nevada campaign, fearing the Arizona senator lacks the ground operation and commitment to win Nevada.

Concern grew last week after McCain canceled a Nevada visit. A new Reno Gazette-Journal poll showed McCain trailing by 7 percentage points, with Democratic challenger Sen. Barack Obama competing in traditional Republican strongholds here.

“People I talk to wonder where the campaign is,” said Chuck Muth, a conservative activist who regularly speaks to dozens of other conservatives — north and south — through his newsletter. [...]

A few Republican operatives, who declined to be named, offered blunt criticism.

The McCain campaign is “a joke,” one said. “There’s not a campaign in Nevada. A couple of guys, running around, being incompetent. Or even worse, arrogantly incompetent.”

The consultant said there was no discernible McCain ground game, which is political jargon for the massive effort needed to find likely supporters and get them to the polls.

Don't they wish they had a 50-State Strategy right about now?

I could not vote in the United States, but for 20 years as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, I served the United States. Like others who have worn the uniform, I know what it is like to serve in harm’s way—you need the right leadership, the right equipment. And I know that after eight years of George Bush, our military cannot afford being overstretched and underequipped. And John McCain is more of the same.

Our military cannot afford more of the same. They need a Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the start and is determined to end the war and bring our troops home and win the fight against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

I know how hard it is to serve your country while raising your family, in my case, a daughter and stepdaughter. At times, duty took me away. Other times, I stayed at home when my husband, David, also in the Coast Guard, deployed overseas. And I know that after eight years of George Bush, our military families cannot afford the long, repeat deployments and short visits home. And John McCain is more of the same.

Our military families need a change. They need a Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama who will ease the burdens on their families, support spouses back home and ensure that military paychecks can support military families.

Barack Obama is the change we need. Now that both my husband and I are retired, we know it is not enough for a president to simply be a veteran; we need a president who truly serves veterans.

We cannot afford John McCain. He thought a new GI Bill for today’s veterans was too generous. He wants to limit health care at the VA to only combat injuries.

We need a commander-in-chief Barack Obama committed to a world-class education and affordable health care for every veteran. As a veteran, I know something else—true patriots, like Barack Obama, never challenge the patriotism of others for political gain.

For America, the stakes are high. For us veterans, the choice is clear. We need Barack Obama as the next commander-in-chief, the next President of the United States of America.

Thank you, gracias.

Wars were funded by, impossible without, and usually fought over oil. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the Nazi invasion of Russia, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and countless other conflicts have been based in whole or in part on the world’s addiction to oil. Even today, dictators and authoritarians from Venezuela to Russia, from Sudan to North Korea, base their actions—and their power to oppress their citizens and threaten their neighbors—solely on access to or sale of oil on the world market.

Since the turn of the new century, those hard facts have come home to America in the most vicious way. Attacked at home by oil-funded terrorists, at war abroad with oil-funded insurgents, threatened in global markets and faced with acquisition of our industrial base by oil-funded multinationals, we must defend America or face her utter destruction.

If we continue to follow this slippery, oil-slicked, downward-winding path, our citizens will shiver in darkness as our resources hemorrhage to Third World thugs whose only virtue is their control of petroleum-based energy.

These threats are real, they are immediate, and they are potentially overwhelming. And the saddest part, the most terrible irony, is that we finance them every time we pump gas or pay utility bills.

The threats are not new, nor is their solution. President Carter warned us about it in the 1970s when he proposed real solutions—conservation, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuels—to what he correctly named the “moral equivalent of war.” His proposals were ridiculed by Republicans who forgot that both Presidents Nixon and Ford had joined him in calling for America’s energy independence.

That bipartisanship, however, became partisan as this nation entered an era of oil industry dominance when, for the 28 years since 1980 except for the Clinton presidency, former oil industry executives have been president or vice president of the United States and indeed, for the past eight years, have filled both offices at once.

For the past eight years, the man in the Oval Office has tipped his hat over his eyes, kicked back his chair, and snoozed at his desk. Charged with protecting our national interests, he slept on duty while his vice president conspired with oil industry cronies. Tasked with cutting off funding to terrorists, he slept on duty while oil shortages worsened, oil prices soared, and dollars by the ton were delivered to terrorists’ banks in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Faced with a new kind of war, this president and his vice president helped their friends the old-fashioned way:

through war profiteering, tax cuts for billionaires, and in many cases out-and-out corruption.

There are honest answers to the problems we face, but they call for hard solutions and common sacrifices, the kind of sacrifices that this administration has only asked the American people to bear when it lined the pockets of the obscenely rich.

There’s an answer, but only if someone will speak truth to power.

There’s an answer, but only if someone will unite Americans to share common burdens to reach common goals.

There’s an answer, but only if someone has the values, the virtues, and the vision to lead us through these troubled waters to that beckoning shore.

There’s an answer. There’s a man. Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is unique. So are we all. Each of us brings to the world our own strengths and weaknesses.

What qualities then, have earned him our support for the highest executive office? Even his opponents agree Senator Obama is smart and thoughtful. His biography proves he’s committed to basic American values like hard work and fair play, and that he is honest and forthright. He articulates a vision of energy independence that is comprehensive and based on sound science and sound policies, science we know will work.

These policies include the answers we discussed at our energy summit in Las Vegas last week: wind, geothermal, and solar power generation and the development of efficient power transmission. Even more importantly, they include conservation measures ignored and indeed ridiculed by the current administration: smarter vehicles, more efficient and accessible mass transit, energy-effective building codes, and retrofitting all have their place in Senator Obama’s vision of an energy-smart America.

But John McCain has a vision too, which in fairness I must address.

When doctors screen out the quack nostrums and phony remedies we call snake oil, they use two fundamental principles: the maxim “first, do no harm” and the question “is it safe and effective?”

In Congress, as in medicine, when we are offered snake oil as a remedy for the nation’s energy ills, our question should be: “Is it safe and effective? Does it do more harm than good?”

Senator McCain and the Republicans have centered their answer to our vital energy needs on one solution: off-shore drilling. Senator McCain calls for it in every speech; his party has demagogued the issue in both houses of Congress.

So, is off-shore drilling energy policy or snake oil? Let’s review the facts. White House analysts, congressional analysts, and the oil industry all agree that off-shore drilling won’t add one drop to our energy pool for at least ten years. The way things are going now, in another ten years we won’t need more oil; nobody will be able to afford it.

T. Boone Pickens said it right: “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”

But even if Doc McCain’s magic off-shore oil elixir won’t work, will it do any harm?

The answer is, we just don’t know, and neither does he. It might not ruin tourism in the Gulf or on the California coast. It might not destroy vital fisheries. It might not pollute our waterways.

Nobody really knows. But kindly old Doc McCain would like to sell it to you anyway.

The simple fact is that the promise of more oil isn’t part of the solution; it’s part of the problem. At best this is an 18th century answer to a 21st century crisis; at worst it’s pure baloney.

There are no quick and easy answers here, folks. For over a quarter of a century, the Republicans have sold their magic beans with a promise of a giant beanstalk and gold over the horizon. Look what they’ve done to our country. Look what they’ve done to our planet.

It is time to bring our nation back to reality. It is time for an energy policy that recognizes national security means ending dependence on oil and that the future is about new ideas and change for the better, not snake oil and quackery.

It is time for recognition that threats to our planet are threats to our great country.

It is time to understand that in the long run, indeed in the short run, we must wean ourselves of addiction to oil.

It is time, my friends, to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States.

To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need specialized care the VA can’t provide, McCain proposed giving low-income veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they could use at private hospitals. [...]

Joe Violanti, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said.

In the meantime, McCain's appearance may have done more for Senator Barack Obama's bid for the presidency than his own. McCain took the opportunity to continue his false, dishonest attacks on Senator Obama instead of, you know, talking about veterans issues.

Other veterans, such as James Jewett and Jay Johnson of Texas, expressed misgivings about McCain using the occasion to attack his opponent so fiercely.

Duke Hendershot, a double amputee retired Marine who served in Vietnam, supported McCain’s run for president in 2000 but is undecided this year.

“John just isn’t the same as he used to be. He’s not his own man,” said Hendershot, who lives in San Antonio, Texas. “A lot of that has to do with how he’s wanted this job so bad for so long that he’s tied himself to President Bush.” [...]

Hendershot also criticized McCain for taking swipes at Obama in his speech. “He should have been talking about veterans issues, not his opponent,” he said.

By contrast, he praised Obama for keeping his remarks tightly focused on veterans. The Democrat gave taped remarks via video.

In several states, including the traditional battlegrounds of Nevada and Iowa, Democrats have surprised their own party officials with significant gains in registration. In both of those states, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans, a flip from 2004. No states have switched to the Republicans over the same period, according to data from 26 of the 29 states in which voters register by party. (Three of the states did not have complete data.)

In six states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, the Democratic piece of the registration pie grew more than three percentage points, while the Republican share declined.

Given the way Republicans governed over the last seven years, these kind of stories make perfect sense, but to put it into historical context, this is a major shift in the political landscape.

But for a shift away from one party to sustain itself — the current registration trend is now in its fourth year — is remarkable, researchers who study voting patterns say. And though comparable data are not available for the 21 states where voters do not register by party, there is evidence that an increasing number of voters in those states are also moving away from the Republican Party based on the results of recent state and Congressional elections, the researchers said.

“This is very suggestive that there is a fundamental change going on in the electorate,” said Michael P. McDonald, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an associate professor of political science at George Mason University who has studied voting patterns.

McCain may be reluctant to detail his record on Yucca Mountain, but the facts are clear. Except for some election-year hedging during his two presidential campaigns, McCain has repeatedly been a champion of Yucca Mountain. In fact, despite his admitted concern about shipping nuclear material through Arizona McCain wants to build at least 45 new nuclear power plants and says dealing with spent nuclear fuel is a "NIMBY" problem that we must have "guts and the courage" to address. See the DNC's web video "NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg

"During his 25 years in Congress, Senator McCain has been a part of America's energy problem by repeatedly voting against the kind of policies would create green jobs in Nevada and break our dependence on fossil fuels," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Now, McCain is promising more of the same by pandering to his new friends in the oil and gas industry and promising to store tons of spent fuel in Nevada, even though he's not comfortable shipping the material through Arizona on its way there. America's working families deserve new energy ideas, not more of the same failed policies that have cost us jobs, driven energy prices through the roof, and done nothing to make America less dependent on foreign oil."

The following is a fact sheet on McCain's support for Yucca Mountain:

MCCAIN HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED YUCCA...

McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996]

McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08]

McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08]

McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08]

McCain: "We Will Build At Least 45 New Nuclear Plants." In a speech in Denver, Colorado, McCain said, "We will develop more clean energy. Nuclear power is the most dependable source of zero-emission energy we have. We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them." [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Denver, CO), 7/7/08]

...EXCEPT WHEN HE HEDGED IN CAMPAIGNS

2008: Campaigning In Nevada, McCain Said He Could Be Compelled To Reverse Support For Storage Of Nuclear Waste At Yucca Mountain. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "On the nuclear dump site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which most Nevadans oppose, McCain stressed the importance to national security of finding somewhere to store spent nuclear fuel currently at power plants across the country. But he indicated he could be persuaded to end his support for Yucca as the site. 'I will respect scientific opinion,' he said. 'The scientific opinion that I had up until recently was that Yucca Mountain was a suitable storage place.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV), 3/29/08]

1999: McCain Made Same Vague Promise To Consider Other Sites For Disposal To Nevadans Prior To His 2000 Run. On a trip to Nevada in February 1999, McCain met with key supporters in the gambling industry and the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Associated Press reported that McCain's votes to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could hurt him among Nevada voters. According to AP, "McCain said he is willing to hear arguments on the issue of whether Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as the nation's nuclear waste repository, but he said the storage problem must be resolved." McCain also said, "I'm not expert enough to know if that's the place or not, but it's unconscionable to leave nuclear waste sitting around in facilities forever." [Associated Press, 2/17/1999]

MCCAIN HAS HIS OWN NIMBY PROBLEM.

MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08]

MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34]

DNC Chairman Howard Dean said the sum is unprecedented for a presidential campaign and represents a show of Democratic confidence that Latino voters could prove pivotal in states including New Mexico and Michigan. [...]

Targets will include Florida; Western states such as Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico; and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, industrial battlegrounds with sizable Hispanic populations. The money will be spent on niche advertising and other outreach, along with mobilization efforts aimed at identifying, registering and turning out new Democratic voters.

Over the weekend, the campaign held a training session in Las Vegas to teach local organizers how to canvass Hispanic communities. A similar forum will be held soon in Florida, Dean said, and sessions in other states are in the planning stages.

These efforts do not bode well for John McCain. His team says "we've already been doing all that." Whatever it is they are doing, it is not working at all.

Although Republican rival John McCain represents Arizona, a state with a strong Hispanic presence, Dean cited a poll last week by the Pew Hispanic Center showing Obama's approval rating with registered Latino voters at 66 percent nationwide, compared with 23 percent for McCain.

The state party broke up its original convention in April when supporters of Ron Paul hijacked the proceedings and tried to elect delegates for their candidate to the national GOP convention in September. Party officials tried to reconvene on July 26, but they needed a quorum of 675 and received only 300 RSVPs, according to local reports.

The latest statewide voter registration numbers are in, and if you've been following this story in recent months, it's no surprise: Democrats again gained ground.

According to the secretary of state's office, 55,560 more Democrats than Republicans are on the active voter rolls in Nevada, as of the end of June. The gap widened from 50,020 in May and represents 5 percent of the 1,031,984 active voters.

These numbers represent a six-point swing in favor of Democrats from this time four years ago.

Kirsten Searer, deputy executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party, noted that at this point in the last presidential election cycle, June 2004, Republicans had a 1 percent edge in voter registration.

"That's a 6-point shift in just one presidential cycle," she said. "I think it's fair to say this is a trend at this point. It's very good news for Democrats up and down the ballot, from Assembly and Senate all the way to Congress."

(Hat tip: kos, DailyKos)

"If Senator McCain isn't comfortable shipping nuclear waste through his own back yard, why is he so willing to put more waste in the back yards of Nevada's families?" said DNC spokesman Damien LaVera. "After repeatedly voting against incentives that would promote renewable energy and create green jobs in Nevada, John McCain's idea of a new energy plan is shipping more nuclear waste to Nevada and giving new handouts to Big Oil. Instead of more waste and fewer jobs, John McCain should offer a real plan that promotes green jobs, breaks our dependence on oil and invests in America's future."

DNC Web Ad:
"NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg

CHRYON: John McCain on Yucca: June 2008

MCCAIN: "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically..."

CHRYON: John McCain on Yucca: May 2007

Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain?

McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not.

MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08]

MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34]

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/audio/062508_nv_conf_call.mp3

The following are highlights from the conference call:

State Senator Steven Horsford

"As many of you know, John McCain has been going around the country campaigning to put our nation on a course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. And given his voting history on the nuclear waste dump here in Nevada referred to as Yucca mountain, we know what he wants to do with the dangerous nuclear waste that will be created from these 45 new nuclear reactors and we know where that waste will end up, and we do not want that to be here in Nevada..."

"Based on Senator McCain's voting record, and the fact that his plan means less jobs and more waste, we think that that is a bad idea for Nevada and that Nevadans should reject his plan."

Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid (2:20)

"I think it's been instructive for Americans to see the comparison between the plan that Senator McCain has put forth and Senator Obama's vision on this important issue. And they've both been here in Nevada within the last 24 hours, and it's been good for Nevadans, because while Senator McCain believes that Nevada is a wasteland, Senator Obama has a plan that will develop the tremendous potential we have here for alternative energy sources..."

"We understand that Nevada is a very unique place. We have more sunshine than we know what to do with. We have geothermal, biomass, tremendous wind resources, so it has been said that Nevada...has the potential to be the Saudi Arabia for renewable resources, because of everything I just described. Senator Obama reconizes that and while Senator McCain wants to bury the most toxic substance known to man in our state, Senator Obama wants to spend billions of dollars to invest in new technologies that will create 5 million new jobs across the country."

Scott Sklar, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition (5:25)

"I'm a strong advocate for Senator Obama because he supports the development of the portfolio of renewable energy resources and energy efficiency that this country has, that can be used in any state..."

"Senator McCain has supported incentives for nuclear power, has been the advocate for nuclear loan guarantees in the enegy bill, has supported and announced he supports drilling offshore and incentives for the oil industry, and yet he absolutely does not support extensions of the production tax credits for wind and biomass and the investment tax credits for solar, small wind, fuel cells, and the water energy technologies and ground couple heat pumps. We are stunned because the lack of congressional action for extension of these credits would cost in the short term close to 150,000 U.S. jobs and stop some of the largest projects, utility scale projects, that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in wind, solar, and geothermal predominantly."

One thing McCain won't bring to Nevada, however, is green jobs. McCain has repeatedly voted against the kind of tax incentives that would promote investments in renewable energy and create green jobs. Just last year, McCain opposed legislation that would have extended the renewable energy production tax credit, putting an estimated 116,000 American jobs at risk, including more than 76,000 in the wind industry and 40,000 in the solar industry.

"Senator McCain's plan for Nevada can by summed up in four words: fewer jobs, more waste," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Maybe Senator McCain thinks shipping more nuclear waste to Nevada will only have a 'psychological' impact on the state, but voters are right to be wonder why McCain has repeatedly said 'yes' to Yucca Mountain, but 'no' to incentives for renewable energy and green jobs. Instead of joining President Bush and the oil industry in working to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, John McCain should join Democrats in offering real ideas for breaking America's dependence on foreign oil."

MCCAIN PLANS TO SIGNIFICANTLY EXPAND U.S. COMMITMENT TO NUCLEAR POWER

McCain Promised To Build 45 New Nuclear Reactors By 2030. At a campaign event in Missouri, McCain championed nuclear power as pivotal to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. McCain said, "So, if I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America." [Speech, johnmccain.com, 6/18/08]

McCain's Proposal For 45 New Nuclear Reactors Is Almost A 50 Percent Increase Over Current Number Of Reactors In United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, "…the U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors, which generate 20% of the nation's electricity." [Wall Street Journal, 6/19/2008]

YUCCA MOUNTAIN WOULD SERVE AS NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY UNDER MCCAIN'S PLANS

McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996]

McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08]

McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08]

McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08]

YET MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST INCENTIVES FOR GREEN JOBS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

2007: McCain Opposed Legislation Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit; Recent Study Concluded More than 116,000 Jobs Could be Lost If the Tax Credit is Not Extended. John McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that included an extension of the production tax credit to 2011. While McCain missed the vote to on the bill, according to his staff he did, in fact, support the continuing the filibuster, which eventually killed the bill. In its place, Congress passed another version of the legislation that did not include an extension of the tax credit. A 2008 economic study by Navigant Consulting found that "over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress… The study concluded that over 76,000 jobs are put at risk in the wind industry, and approximately 40,000 jobs in the solar industry." [HR 6, Vote 425, 12/13/07, Failed 59-40: R 9-39 D 48-1 I 2-0; Forbes, 12/13/07; U.S. News & World Report, 12/14/07; American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association press release, 2/4/08]

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Legislation McCain Opposed Included Investment Set To Expire Next Year For Generators Of Geothermal, Wind And Solar Power. "Compromises that won passage for a major energy bill in the Senate this week left investors for geothermal, wind and solar resources out in the cold. After a long struggle, the Senate passed the bill late Thursday. It increases vehicle fuel mileage standards and encourages energy efficiency in federal buildings and in electricity-guzzling appliances. The House is expected to take a final vote next week. But passage was assured only after negotiators removed provisions that would set a requirement that 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. Also gone were extensions for investment and production tax credits set to expire next year for generators of geothermal, wind and solar power. 'From the standpoint of renewable energy, the compromises were certainly a missed opportunity, and they were out of step with much of the support we get from across the country,' said Gregory Wetsone, director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association." [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/15/07]

San Francisco Chronicle: Legislation McCain Opposed Also Sought Eliminate Tax Cuts for Oil Companies and Instead Fund Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the 2007 energy bill that McCain opposed "would have revoked $13.5 billion in tax breaks from the five largest oil companies. The money would have been redirected into tax incentives for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wave energy and other renewables. Consumers would have received a $3,000 tax credit for buying an electric plug-in hybrid and a tax credit of up to $4,000 for installing solar panels to power their homes. But the measure failed on a 59-40 vote, falling one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to end debate and move the bill forward." [2007 Vote 425, 12/13/07; The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/14/07]

2006: McCain Voted Against Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit And Over $290 For Renewable Energy Research. McCain voted against an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower. [2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006]