.
July 15th, 2008
05:50 PM ET

Lifting the ban on offshore drilling?

ALT TEXT
Discoverer Deep Seas drillship off the coast of Louisiana drills for oil in the Gulf of Mexico for Chevron.(PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Bush says Congress is the only thing standing between Americans and offshore drilling.

With gas averaging more than $4 a gallon, the president lifted an executive order yesterday that bans offshore drilling. But it was pretty much an empty gesture – not unlike a good deal of the rest of the Bush administration.

Offshore drilling has been against the law since 1981, and Congress would need to repeal that law before any drilling can take place. The president says Democrats should match his action to show that "they finally heard the frustrations of the American people."

Republicans in Congress are joining President Bush in laying the blame at the feet of the Democrats. Seven years without a coherent energy policy, and suddenly $4 gas is the Democrats' fault. Can you tell it's an election year?

The Democrats are pushing back. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says expanding offshore drilling would do little to lower gas prices in the near future. She says President Bush should release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move he has resisted.

And it's not just Democrats who are against offshore drilling. California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it's not the answer, and instead we should work toward alternative energy sources.

The whole debate is pretty silly when you think about it. The oil companies currently have 68 million acres under offshore lease that are not being developed. Also, the U.S. has a shortage of refinery capacity, so even if we started drilling for more oil, there would be an issue of where to refine it.

Here’s my question to you: Should Congress go along with President Bush's call to lift the ban on offshore drilling?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Allen in Hartwell, Ga. writes:
All this will do is feed the pig. After offshore drilling, the oil companies will be after unregulated mining of the shale oil fields. We need to go on a low-oil diet. If we Americans didn’t waste so much fuel, we wouldn’t be in this poor shape and could tell the oil companies where to put all the oil we wouldn’t need.

Amanda writes:
If Bush, McCain and the majority of Republicans are in favor of this, it can't be a good idea.

Tom from Las Vegas writes:
I don't oppose offshore drilling, or even expanding drilling in Alaska. But I do believe the issue has no bearing on energy prices right now or even in the near future… The real problem isn't with the availability of areas in which to drill, it's with the inability to motivate oil companies to spend additional money to drill. Why spend money to develop new sources of oil when the current system is raking in record profits?

Jim writes:
Of course we should be drilling for new oil. Why is this such a big issue? Even if there were another solution to “America's energy crisis" today, it could take a decade or more to make the transition. Drilling now will, of course, not have any immediate effect on prices at the pump. But there is a more important issue at hand: America's dependence on foreign oil. We should be doing anything we can to at least try to become "energy independent."

Shirley from Ohio writes:
Only if there is going to be relief at the gas pumps the day after they start drilling.

Tony writes:
No. I have put a windmill on the top of my car and it only takes 4 hours for me to get to work, about 2 miles away. The other day I stuffed a bushel of corn into my gas tank and that worked just fine, too. Tomorrow I plan to look into other alternative fuels and will let you know how I do. Let the oil stay in the ground, and let the environmental lobbyists keep paying off those in Congress. They need more money to pay for their planes and limos.


Filed under: Offshore Drilling
soundoff (192 Responses)
  1. Nancy from Florida

    Jack, for the life of me, how does lifting the ban on off shore drilling help the energy crisis? It solves nothing and has a potential to do terrible harm. We need to change the focus of our energy policy from fossil fuels to renewable clean sources. Lifting the ban on off shore drilling completely undermines that goal.

    July 15, 2008 at 1:51 pm |
  2. Dave from Mission Viejo,California

    Sure, the ban on off-shore drilling should be lifted, IF the drilling can be done safely. That is the big question. Do you trust big oil companies and the federal government to act responsibly? I know I don't.

    July 15, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
  3. James from Virginia

    no because it would just make bush and his oil buddies more rich. they don't need more money they need to get a clue.

    July 15, 2008 at 1:57 pm |
  4. Raj, Toronto

    I could tell you Jack that I lifted a ban on people wearing clothing in public but that does not mean everyone will be nude the next day. In Toronto he have passed such a law a decade ago but if you walk the streets today you don't see any nudity like that at all. So to suggest that lifting some ban will start production, it only allows corporations to take land from the American people so that they can buy it on the pennies and make huge profits as they force up the price of gas by not drilling on them today or for the next 20 years or so.

    July 15, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  5. Mark - Asheville, NC

    I hate to agree with Former Governor Bush on anything, but I am for doing "it all": drilling, new energy sources, whatever it takes to become independent of foreign oil, and eventually independent of fossil fuels. Drilling now could serve as a 'bridge' to the latter, but the oil companies' influence on Congress will have to be strictly controlled.

    As for Congress acting meaningfully now, that is about as likely as Saudi giving us a few billion barrels of free oil!

    July 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  6. Raj, Toronto

    I could tell you Jack that I lifted a ban on people wearing clothing in public but that does not mean everyone will be nude the next day. In Toronto we have passed such a law a decade ago but if you walk the streets today you don't see any nudity like that at all, and when the law as passed back then. So to suggest that lifting some ban will start production, it only allows corporations to take land from the American people so that they can buy it for pennies and make huge profits as they force up the price of gas by not drilling on them today or for the next 20 years or so.

    This is not a capitalist society, it is were one, we would allow any company with the know how to do so. The reason why they do not do this is because it is corporatism. And the lobby in Washington is what is chocking America and its freedoms from reaching a true liberated society.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
  7. Raymond in Charlotte, NC

    Jack, I have a better question for you: if the oil companies want additional drilling to occur, why do they not use the millions of acres they already have that they are presently not using?

    Ray in Charlotte, NC

    July 15, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  8. Jason, Koloa, HI

    No, it will do nothing to drop oil prices. It is just one last effort by "Bush Oil Inc." to make as much money as they can off of the high prices of oil. The answer is to conserve as much oil as we can with efficiency, implement cap and trade, and use the same effort ind ingenuity we used to land on the moon to find alternatives. America is ready,

    July 15, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  9. Gene, Jacksonville, Florida

    Why should they? Prices at the pump will continue to be manipulated by the refineries and/or lack thereof. Why prepare the cake batter if there are not enough ovens to bake in?

    July 15, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  10. Carol c.

    Lifting the ban with all the land ALREADY available for drilling and not touched reminds me of a kid having a cookie in his hand and asking for three more without eating the one he has! When they start using what they already have the rights to, I might think this a more plausible way to go.

    But like all of Bush and McCains policies, they simply tell the American people what they WANT to hear and not the truth.

    Knoxville, TN

    July 15, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  11. Al Bledsoe

    Offshore drilling is the wrong investment at the wrong time. The question is: will what needs to get done, get done. And will what gets done, get done without capitalism suffering. - It has gotten even uglier out here!

    July 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  12. Michael Cassidy, Lorain, Ohio

    Only as a last resort. There is no reason why we can't use the federal land that has already been earmarked for oil drilling. There is no reason why we should not be focusing more of our attention on alternative, sustainable, environmentally safe, domestic resources. With oil companies making record profits, it is now time to make them foot the bill for this country's economic future.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  13. Darlene - PA

    Haven't we, ruined the environment enough with our pollution, drilling, etc. all in the name of a buck? There is already land leased to the oil companies 68 million acres to be exact, that they aren't even drilling on. Sorry, but I am not in favor of further ruining our pristine coastlines so the oil men and repubicans can become trillionaires.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  14. Darlene - PA

    Haven't we, ruined the environment enough with our pollution, drilling, etc. all in the name of a buck? There is already land leased to the oil companies 68 million acres to be exact, that they aren't even drilling on. Sorry, but I am not in favor of further ruining our pristine coastlines so the oil men and repubicans can become trillionaires.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  15. David of Alexandria

    Yes, Jack. Yes, yes, yes. This is so simple, I can't stand it. We will still need oil in 15 years and I'd sure rather get it from one of "us" than one of "them." Anyone who can't see that is being so short-sighted that they need to run for Congress.

    If, in the mean-time a little more drilling brings down the price of old, more the better.

    Drilling needs to be a part of an overall energy plan which gets us off oil pronto - best case scenario? We sell our oil to "them" because we don't need it anymore.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  16. Frank Canada

    Of course not this is just big oil's play for a down the road profit scheme.

    I don't know why news organizations don't tell the public the truth that the sagging dollar and speculation are the two big reasons for the soaring prices. Of course the Iraq invasion is also at the top of this list.

    Also it is common knowledge any oil extracted goes into the pool and will not have any affect on the prices on it's own as the price will be set by the demand created via China and India.

    Look at Canada with some of the largest oil reserves in the world and check out our prices here and in the U.S. where it is piped in directly.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  17. Patricia ID

    The answer is not in using the old ways of digging and drilling and dumping toxic nuclear waste. The answer is in conservation and green technologies.

    I can't wait to get rid of these guys.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  18. Richard Green

    Absolutely not, Jack! Why let the oil pirates get at more of the US reserves? We'll end up a decade down the road with less oil not more, paying not a cent less for gas because the oil companies can't refine what they pump now, and the oil companies will be the only ones who will have benefited by the new leases. And if we pump too much, the Saudis have already said that they'll reduce their production. In the meantime, our national focus will have been diverted once again from the real job of building more wind and solar generation, and developing viable alternatives to oil in our economy.
    It's a waste of our time and money and won't benefit US taxpayers a whit!

    Richard Green
    San Clemente, California

    July 15, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  19. tom tyskiewicz

    NO !!!!!!!!!!

    TOM, FOREST HILLS, PA

    July 15, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  20. Terry from North Carolina

    Jack
    Absolutely, congress should support off shore drilling, it may not help us short term however if we are ever going to break this strangle hold that these third world countries have on us with oil, this will be one of the steps that we will have to take, along with other energy alternatives that have been recommended.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  21. Michael - Leander, TX

    Absolutely not Jack!

    This is political pandering by the president and the GOP stooges will fall behind this in lockstep. The Dems need to stick to the facts and get in front of every microphone, camera, keyboard, etc and tell it like it is: Lifting the ban will not help us NOW, next year, the year after or any time for the next 10 years! If we want to solve the oil crisis, we need to get our foreign policy under wraps and work on alternative energy sources. If Iraq wasn't a mess and we weren't saber rattling with Iran, MAYBE the price of oil would drop down under $100.00 a barrel. And maybe if we taxed the oil companies, we could use the funds gained to do government research and development since Big Oil refuses to do so.

    This is a ploy and nothing more, and just in time for the election!

    July 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  22. dennis

    This necessary,
    Things will not get better unless we step up to the plate. This will create jobs and control world prices. Hell I'm poor not stupid

    July 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  23. Ralph in New York

    Yes, Jack, but only where we will find enough oil to make our country more self-sufficient. Of course, this does not mean ignoring the need to find and use alternative energy, but developing these may take time and until the alternatives exist, we cannot face economic collapse and be dependent on oil suppliers outside our country.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  24. T (Ft Worth)

    This will only benefit the big oil companies and not the hard, working people who rely on oil products.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  25. Rodolfo Aguirre

    Jack,
    We should not lift the ban on offshore drilling until that is the only oil left in the planet!! it doesn't make much difference where we buy the crude oil we need since most of our (USA & European) oil companies benefit from it anyhow. We want to be the last nation sitting on oil reserves, so we must suck all other countries oil till they are dry. What would happen if we use all our oil and the only ones left in the planet with oil to sell are Russia, Iran, Venezuela...shall I continue? If we are really worried about our 'dependence' on oil we should do something about it. Why do I drive or fly from LA to Vegas/San Francisco, etc., There should be a high speed train to take me there...
    Please stop trying to get everyone scared about nothing and focus on the real issues.
    Saludos
    Rodolfo Aguirre
    Irvine, CA

    July 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  26. Troy

    Oxford MS

    Yes we should lift the ban. Even if it won't produce immediate effects, it will keep us from being in this same situation years from now.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  27. Mike, Syracuse NY

    With Congress' approval rating lower than Bush's, they better get up off their butts and do SOMETHING. Congress has been MIA on every major issue facing America today. Oh, except for steroids in baseball. They're all over that one.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  28. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    No. Instead they should provide large tax incentives for developing alternative energy sources and tax liabilities for oil. We absolutely need to stop placing so much effort into enriching our enemies and becoming wholly dependent on them. Our only way out of disaster is independence.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  29. Jonathan, Hartford, CT

    It is not fair to the people on the Gulf Coast of Florida nor is it fair to the marine environment. If people think drilling is going to bring down the cost of gasoline, they are dreaming. All the benefits of drilling will go into the pockets of big oil.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  30. Donna Colorado Springs,Co

    Lifting the ban would be just fine if it would actually lower gas prices soon. From everything I have read, nothing will help gas prices go down immediately, Off-shore oil drilling would take at least 10 years to show any progress to consumers. Why didn't washington think about this 8 years ago? Because Bushs oil buddies would have been in trouble financially, and Bush couldn't do that to his friends. Now, Bush wants his legacy to show that he actually accomplished something, so he is pretending to care about the American people by talking about the mess we are in, thanks to him. He is such a joke!

    July 15, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  31. Chester F.

    Someone needs to tell the American people the truth. If we drill everywhere on and offshore in the United States, we will still have only 3% of the world's total oil supply. Our consumption is far greater than that, meaning we'll still be held captive to conditions in the Middle East. In addition, it will be decades before the oil found in the new offshore drilling has any affect on gasoline prices – if there is any affect at all. President Bush's demand is an attempt to make the American public feel better. More Dr. Phil economics. We won't make progress until we find new sources of energy and that won't be done if we continue down the same old path. By the way. Are you aware that American oil companies now export a million barrels a day? If there is a bona fide crisis, one would think that oil would go into the American market. The refineries aren't running at capacity either. Curious.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  32. Susan from Scotts Valley, CA

    No. It wouldn't surprise me if this whole gasoline price issue isn't being manipulated by Bush in cahoots with the oil companies to get Americans behind lifting this ban. They have us all worked up about pricing and are feeding this misconception that lifting the ban is actually going to make a difference. It won't. Prices are not going to come down. Global demand is going to continue to go up. This is a huge distraction from where our real focus should be and that's developing a comprehensive energy policy that is going to get us off of our 'addiction to oil'. Wonder who said that?? Uh Bush...How does lifting the ban help with that?

    July 15, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  33. Jed from Redding, CA

    My son a year old now and by the time we see the fleeting amounts of oil from either offshore drilling or ANWR he'll be old enough to start a family of his own. One would hope by then that the gas powered automobile would be a quaint relic of a time long past. An arcane invention relegated to memory and avid collectors. Well to do capitalists who can afford to purchase, maintain and fuel the antique contraptions. Everyone else will (hopefully) be driving electric battery powered cars recharged at home via renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal.

    That's where we provide the incentives: To energy companies that invest in nature friendly renewable energy and car companies that invest in battery technology that can power a car for at least as long as a full tank of gas.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  34. Fred May

    Jack,
    Drilling off-shore should be the last resort. Since it has been reported that the USA has the worlds largest natural gas,I think the auto makers should get busy andfind away to use that supply. I listen to people say we should do this or that. We find out how to reduce electric needs by changing light bulbs. We build telescopes to see thousands of lightyears into space. Look at how the auto has advanced in comfort and saftey. All this costs money. In this world it seems the only thing that counts is MONEY. Everybody wants it and nobody wants to spend it.(all industry). When the NIH finds out how to treat the greed in this country we will be better off.
    Fred

    July 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  35. Stacy from Beautiful Loudoun County Virginia

    Jack, don’t expect Congress to do anything controversial because it is an election year. Democrats want to rile up their base of environmentalists so the vote against, Republicans want to rile up their fiscal conservatives so they vote for it…so the answer: do nothing and everybody (politically speaking of course) wins!

    July 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  36. Patricia F Upstate NY

    Absolutely not. We do not have a shortage of oil, it's a shortage of refineries. That and the speculators are driving up the price. We have to get off oil, which is poisoning our world. I'm not a tree hugger, just being practical. I
    n the 60's and 70's we were worried about pollution, and in the 80's the government finally saw the light. I just hope they don't take 30 years this time. I'm afraid we don't have 10 years. Something has to be done. Personnally,
    Living in the North East, I'm so worried about the cost of heating this winter, I'm looking into Solar Panels for my house. They will pay for themselves in only a few years and I'll be going Green at the same time.

    Patricia Pine Plains, NY

    July 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  37. mk, sc

    No, Congress should not vote to lift Bush's ban of offshore drilling. What's six more months of waiting for the the new president's plan to be rolled out in January? It may actually be closer to 1 month, if you take time out for holidays, vacations, scheduling, debate, discussion, procrastination, etc......

    July 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  38. Dan NY

    Dear Jack,

    Solving the energy crisis by lifting the ban on off-shore drilling is a little like treating alcoholism by brewing more beer. We need to get off oil, not find more of it. Not only does reduced use make sense in terms of economic and foreign policy, but let's not forget the environment. Finding more oil simply means we will use more oil, and there go the ice caps. Let's take all the money we would put towards exploration and explore solar, wind, water, and any other alternative that protects us from being exploited by lesser nations and protects the environment from being exploited by us. Or will that philosophy not work for G Bush's friends in the oil bidness. Who's kidding whom about this?

    Dan NY

    July 15, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  39. Martin

    George Bush & John McCain have both stated that we have to eliminate our dependency on oil.
    John McCain has correctly stated that the use of oil not only hurts the ecology of our world but it also makes the oil producing countries wealthier and our country relatively poorer.
    He says that we have to develop substitute sources of renewable energy so that we eliminate the causes of Global Warming and once again work to becoming the economic leader of the world.
    Does it make any sense to you that we should continue to benefit the energy companies and add additional costs to the taxpayers which increases our deficit and further dcreases the value of our dollar which in turn increases inflation.
    The money should be spent to accelerate the development of better sources of energy.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  40. chryssa

    Jack, I hope Congress and all the drill-happy Americans realize that Bush's plan won't provide us with a drop of oil for 7 – 10 years. Drilling is not the answer. We need to stay on track with less driving, more fuel efficient vehicles and exploring other renewable sources of energy, like ethanol, wind and solar.

    Boise, ID

    July 15, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  41. Esther Marie

    Cuyahoga Falls Ohio
    forget about Oil
    lift the band on Hemp.
    growing Hemp will give us new industry new jobs new creative energy like Ford intended it to be run the automobile with Hemp and we can clean up the air along with all of that. George Washington will be happy that we remembering what he said grow hemp and grow lots of it.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  42. Marie

    Sounds good. In 7-10 years from now , when the price of gas is $15 or so a gallon, we maybe able to meet that demand and save, let's see, how many pennies? This is rediculous. We need a comprehensive multi approach plan of action to solve this problem. McLame doesn't have a clue. No Country For Old Men. Not to lead my kids in the future.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  43. Katiec Pekin, IL

    Absolutely not!
    What little benefit this would create for the American people (course
    many perks for big oil, surprise, surprise) would be many years
    away and inadequate.
    Bush/McCains drilling is comparable to putting a band aide
    on a hemmorage. This problem has been ignored for years
    and is going to take years to resolve. Continuing to destroy
    our environment is not the answer.
    There is alot of land already available to the oil companies.
    To let them destroy virgin land is unacceptable.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  44. bob, oshawa, canada

    Jack, yes, the ban should be lifted for the simple reason that moves toward an increased oil supply would help ease the rise of oil prices. To his credit, John McCain made this point yesterday and he thought it would take some of the power away from the hedge fund operators who have unduly manipulated the price of oil to the detriment of world economic stability. It's ironic that George Bush can invade any country he wishes without legitimate cause, but can't deal with an elite group in his own country who need some regulation. If only Teddy Roosevelt had left that big stick lying around the White House somewhere for George to pick up.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  45. Mike - Pueblo, CO

    Let's see, in the short term, do I want to protect pristine areas and go bankrupt feeding my car cornahol, or feed my family but sully the landscape with a few more oil rigs, pipelines, refineries and the like while we develop alternative fuels? Do I want my country to take control of its own destiny, or let OPEC dictate our future? That congress feels there should even be a debate over these no-brainer type questions demonstrates the level of contempt they have for the American public and the country they purport to serve.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  46. Scott - Wichita, Kansas

    I'm not sure on this one. I'd say leave it in the ground until everyone else is out of oil, then sell it, while we enjoy the consequences of the current fuel crisis that is jump-starting the alternative energy industry.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  47. Paul

    Jack,
    I think they should as well as going along with T. Boone Pickins and develop wind and solar power for the future or we will all be T. Boone
    Pickins bothers Slim Pickins.
    Paul
    Texas

    July 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  48. Michael Smith, New Orleans

    In 2002 the Bush brothers, George and Jeb, agreed to spends millions of federal dollars to buy up the oil leases off the coast of Florida – a popular initiative in time for Jeb's re-election campaign, and popular for President George Bush too. Now he proposes to reneg on his agreement and stink up the Florida beaches the way he stunk up the U.S. economy. I guess that's how the Oil Club does business.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  49. Robert

    This is what Bush and the Oil Industry has wanted since 2000.

    Just another example of Bush driving his policy down the publics throat. Driving up the price of oil is simply a way of twisting the public eye into accepting this.

    This country needs to reform the way it uses gasoline and energy. We simply waste our resources rather than use them wisely. Drilling for more will simply line the pockets of the oil industry and not do a damn thing for restructuring the USA's appetite for energy.

    I have a feeling that prices will decrease somewhat starting Jan 20, 2009 – when the Bush Era comes to an end! I urge the Congress to fight and prevent lifting the ban.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  50. Bobby in Brooklyn, NY

    Dear Jack,

    Drill offshore, drill in Anwar...heck, since my monthly expenditure for gasoline now exceeds my car payment, the oil companies can drill in my swimming pool for all I care.

    P.S., how soon before I see you on the subway?

    July 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  51. John in San Diego

    The folly of expanding offshore drilling is so obvious that even proposing it is an insult to every intelligent American.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  52. Ray Lawson

    Of course. We should drill our own oil rather than buy it from foreign countries. It will reduce the trade deficit and help the dollar. Clinton shouldn,t have vetoed the drilling bill during his term.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  53. Not in Big Oil's corner!

    Not right away! Congress should take its time to assess! Bush is simply shilling for Big Oil. Nothing can help the current price levels of oil as it would take years, decades for oil to be marketed anyway. Why is it that Bush likes to scare the American public? Is this his only gravitas? Frankly, with his history of failed ventures, he should know that timely advocacy should be the thing here rather to stumble time and again into failed ventures. Here is a time that Congress should take its time with the wholesale depletion of oil drilling rights which Big Oil, like buying out its competitors, will simply draw upon for higher oil prices. This is only a charade and Bush does this well! I am looking to get an electric car anyway so, this oil can stay in the ground for all I care!

    July 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  54. Ed Reed

    The President's own Dept. of Energy reports ANWR will add only 1% to the world's daily oil production by 2035 and all of the under the Offshore Continental Shelf will satisfy the world's demand for only 219 days. Once again, the President is misleading the country into believing there is a "quick fix" to our problem and that his political opposites are to blame.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX

    July 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  55. Dave in Astoria

    Congress should start impeachment proceedings on the clown and his Vader-like sidekick. Incidentally, the congress should thank him for the global and economic catastrophe he has created for the saner people of America to fix.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  56. JT in NYC

    Absolutely not! George Bush had 7 years to impliment a comprehensive energy policy and this is a sad reflection on how little he has accomplished. Of course Congress has had plenty of chances too. Everyone knew this situation was coming, and now all they can think of is lifting the ban on offshore drilling? How pitiful.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  57. Keith - Cleveland

    They certainly should... At least this way they would be doing SOMETHING. When the gas crunch hit in the 70's, what did congress come up with, then..? What have they done since..?

    Lifting the ban would at least give the appearance that they are still sitting in those seats in Washington that we elected them to..

    What were we thinking..? Wait until November..

    July 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  58. Ed Reed

    The President’s own Dept. of Energy reports ANWR will add only 1% to the world’s daily oil production by 2035 and all of the oil under the Offshore Continental Shelf will satisfy the world’s demand for only 219 days. Once again, the President is misleading the country into believing there is a “quick fix” to our problem and that his political opposites are to blame.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX

    July 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  59. Not in Big Oil's corner!

    Congress should take its time on this matter! No oil from these off-shore drilling locations will not get used for years, decades, so, it will not help immediately. Bush is simply barking for Big Oil on this matter.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  60. Dan, Chantilly VA

    It never ceases to amaze me how little foresight people in this country have. Gas prices are not high because we're dependent on foreign oil, they're high because we're dependent on oil period. This is not a market that has traditionally been governed by supply and demand. It's all about demand because the oil companies know that they can set the price to whatever they want and people are going to pay it. Even assuming that we start drilling off-shore and the oil starts flowing tomorrow, do you really expect the oil companies to pass the savings on to us? We'll see a reduction in gas prices by a couple of cents at most. It's time to face reality folks. We won't see any oil from off-shore drilling for another ten years and it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build these rigs (money that will no doubt come from government subsidies). And if we still need oil that badly ten years from now, then we're doomed for not developing any alternative energy resources. Besides, if we want American oil this badly then maybe the oil companies should drill in the millions of acres of land they already own.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  61. Patricia

    When I last looked at this, the oil companies already had plenty of land leases to explore for oil. They haven't started to drill on those lands. The oil companies don't need more land, they just need to start drilling on the lands that are leased to them already. It's just a way to bully Americans into accepting control by big oil.
    Patricia
    Palmdale, Ca.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  62. Sue from Idaho

    Yes they should,
    Independence and security do not happen overnight, or in a week, or in a year. If our nation is going to be more self sufficient and less dependent on other sources for our resource needs then drilling and fair trade agreements are necessary. Sure, this drilling will not bring about a quick fix, but will lead our nation to being more self sufficient and less suseptable to foreign governments whims of control. The drilling for oil is like saving in a retirement account, you save for the long term goal. Americans do not like to be dictated to on what they can and cannot have. Lets start depending on ourselves for sufficiency and not sucker under to those nations who care less about who we are and our ways of life.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  63. Harry

    Sure, why not!! With the Army and Marines tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, this will give the Navy an opportunity to open up a 3rd front.
    Is there any oil in the Stratosphere?

    Harry
    Ky.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  64. AndyZag

    It saddens me to think that the totally gutless Democratic Congress will cave in once again. If they do not then they will be accused of causing the oil price crisis by the administration. Where the hell is Tip O'Neill when you really need him?

    July 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  65. Linda in Virginia

    Well Jack, isn't that what all these high gas prices are about in the first place? To lift the ban on offshore drilling!!! I'd say this lousy country's greedy people are just wanting the majority of folks to hurt really good so they can make more money. Shame on someone as we have banks failing, and a new 2008 term "Mortgage Meltdown". What in the heck is the USA coming to? Why are we here? None of it needed to happen, in my humble opinion. Look at the history of the last 8 years. We have gone from one pitiful thing to the next. I'll end now cause I'm in a rage over all of it.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  66. John Fort Collins, CO

    We Americans need to focus on reducing the demand for domestic oil, not the supply. High gas costs are short term pain for long term gain. We are already seeing the development of 150 mile per gallon plug-in electric cars, expansion of alternative forms of transportation, and new sources of clean energy. We should save the remaining domestic oil reserves for future generations and national emergencies.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  67. Jeremy D (University of Texas)

    Yes, because listening to George Bush is what Congress needs to do to get their rating from 17% to 28%. It's like worrying about who can come in 2nd to last. November can't come any sooner....

    July 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  68. Bruce St Paul MN

    First there was the sudden deluge of TV ads telling us that oil and energy companies are warm and fuzzy. Then, when gas hit four dollars, there came a sudden chorus from Republicans across the country calling for the ban to be lifted. A tiny little voie in the back of my head started to tell me that if they were for it, I should be against it. The fact that they are touting it as a way to get IMMEDIATE gas price relief certainly suggests that they are at it again. Selling us something based on a reasonable-sounding lie. Haven't we been here before? Please, someone, anyone, explain why I should believe the president, any Republican, or the oil companies.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  69. Rob Weiss, Tucson, Arizona

    Jack:
    While conserving is never a bad idea, we need to not be as dependant on other sources of oil. We have what we need here, and just off-shore. We, as a counrty, need to access this to cover our needs while we transition to other forms of enery. The problem is the environmentalists who block every thing that comes in their path. Sorry, they need to be pushed aside for the betterment and security of our Nation. Nancy Pelosi needs to think about this as does Harry Reid. Both need to pass this and let the country move on.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  70. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    If Congress hasn't learned by now that Bush is always leading the charge in the wrong direction, against the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, could some competent health professionals please check the water?

    July 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  71. Victor in Saanich, B.C. Canada

    No Jack. The answer lies in immediate improved MPG and alternative fuels etc.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  72. juice-Canyon Lake

    Absolutely not. Any fool can see that this all a political stunt by Bush and the republicans. We would not see a drop of oil from off shore drilling for 8-10 years. The oil companies already have contracts on millions of acres of land from which to drill. Congress needs to be looking at the oil speculators who are driving up the price of oil period!

    July 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  73. Donna in ID

    Other countries are drilling there and have been for yrs. About 50 or so miles off the American Coasts. While we basically sit on our collective rears and get ripped off. We have even been doing some drilling and are set so that it will Not take 5 to 7 yrs to get. going after the ban is lifted.
    But then no one seems to want to discuss all the oil and natural gas we have on our main land that is easier and faster to get to while we develope off shore.
    Then someone should bring up how to promote more refineries.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  74. Anthony Smith

    I think yes. Not because Bush egged them on but because anything will help down the road. Doing nothing at this point is treason. Also, it makes his father look like the a** that we have all come to know. That being said, Pelosi and the Dems should vehemently fire back at the insult Bush threw at them the other day. Bush stated that the Dems have been sitting on his energy bill for a month and that is the reason for the energy crisis. He has been president for almost 8 years and hasn't done anything. Gas prices have risen 200-300% since he has been in office. As usual, he is reactive and not proactive. To blame the Dems for his debacle of a presidency is ludicrous, outrageous, and salacious!

    Wildwood Crest, NJ

    July 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  75. Patty.D. Bristol, Pa.

    No Jack, They shouldn't. Bush and his co-horts overlook the fact that oil companies have leases for thousands of acres to drill for oil. Also that fact it will take years to even get to it. All of this time we could have invested in alternative energy. Wind, Solar, we have the technology, but the politicans don't have the guts.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  76. Margaruite, Alford, Florida

    If we don't drill off the Florida coast China and Cuba will and do you really think that they are going to take the steps necessary that would prevent an oil spill on the Fl. Coast. I think not. Besides, we need to get off the foreign oil free fall its killing out economy. If we don't want to turn into a 3rd world country DRILL, DRILL, DRILL.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  77. Independent Voter in Georgia

    Hi Jack,

    Sure, Congress can sign on with President Bush's and Senator McCain's plans of lifting the ban on offshore drilling with one request.....If the cost of Oil does not come down in 30 days then they must admit that this was another gimmick to the American People that benefited the Oil Companies and not the American People.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  78. Annie, Atlanta

    I find it funny that George W. Bush is all about the oil in almost everything he does. Hell no, congress should not go along with him on this, or anything else for that matter. If we don't clean up our act, there won't be much reason to care anyway.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  79. Tom from Virginia

    Jack –

    Sure, sell the oil companies more leases. But in return they have to return the ones they are not using or tax them on the undeveloped leases.

    Sounds fair to me.

    July 15, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  80. Pat,Lexington, Ky.

    This is a "Georgie-come-lately" kinda thing – a political move to give McCain something to talk about. It doesn't make any more sense than offering the gas tax "vacation" – won't help in the short term. We need to put our minds and money (what money????) into alternative energy sources – wonder when T. Boone Pickens will give us his plan?

    July 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  81. Richard Sternagel

    Bush is hoping his Pandering will work with with the Electorate! He must think we're as Stupid as he.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  82. Betty - AL

    No – he and Dick must have invested in something that makes it profitable for this to be opened up.

    Tell him to shove it.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  83. Allen from Hartwell, GA

    All this will do is feed the pig. After off-shore drilling, the oil companies will be after unregulated mining of the shale oil fields.

    We need to go on a low-oil diet. If we Americans didn't waste so much fuel we wouldn't be in this poor shape, and could tell the oil companies where to put all the oil we wouldn't need.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  84. Rosalynd Florida

    If the current members of congress want a future in politics they better not go along with Bush on offshore drilling. The American people are tired of pandering. Let's get some real solutions on the table.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  85. mitchell ,arkansaw

    bush is pandering for mccain.they will only be happy when oil slicks are covering california's beaches and coastline after the next 'big one'.or when the next category 5 hurricane slams the east coast and covers our eastern shores.maybe we'll be happy when the entire population is rolling around in a giant puddle of crude,gasping for air.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  86. Rod from Allentown PA

    Only if they want to get the liberal from Illinois elected.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  87. Maggie Muggins From Selwyn

    Of course they should do as George Bush and John McCain advocate since they are so intellectually superior to anyone else in the world. Oh, and they should give them the okay to go ahead and bomb Iran while they're at it.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  88. Marc

    Nothing ventured – nothing gained.

    This is the only issue I disagree with the Democrats and Barack Obama on. How can anyone claim that drilling in the ocean, the gulf or Anwar will not reduce the price of oil if we don't at least give it a try?

    One thing for certain – the price won't come down on it's own and national security will be at risk, if we don't all change our ways, learn to conserve and become less dependent on other countries for our oil supplies.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  89. IFEANYI AZUBIKE Houston, Texas

    Who cares what they do. If drilling in the white house or congress will bring relief at the pump who cares. For all we care, even if we can squeeze it out of their balls, bring it on.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  90. Terry, Chandler AZ

    Yes the ban should be lifted. It will not solve the problem, but it will make people feel better. In addiation to lifting the ban, serious, very serious bi-partisan solutions need to be reached on alternative and renewable energies.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  91. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    No! The oil companies already have leases on 60 million acres of public land. Why aren't they drilling there. Also tourism is a multi-billion dollar business in the U.S. If we destroy everything worth seeing,then who would want to come here.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  92. Amanda & Adrian for Obama (Atlanta, Ga.)

    No way. We need to eliminate our dependence on oil period; not just foreign oil.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  93. Allen from Hartwell, GA

    All this will do is feed the pig. After off-shore drilling, the oil companies will be after unregulated mining of the shale oil fields.

    We need to go on a low-oil diet. If we Americans didn’t waste so much fuel we wouldn’t be in this poor shape, and could tell the oil companies where to put all the oil we wouldn’t need.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  94. Lorin Salob

    Just how much money do you think the oil companies will be paying Bush when he gets out of office. Library? Hah!!How about a couple oil wells from his buddies!

    July 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  95. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack, so you are asking if the "do nothing Congress" go along with Bush's demand to lift the ban offshore drilling....they should, but they want. There is a tremendous amount of foreign lobbyist that is influencing America's addiction to oil and that equates to billions of dollars being transfered to foreign interest. In addition, starting to drill offshore for oil now.......they should have been drilling almost 30 years ago. Another token solution being provided by an Administration that has failed. It is almost a moot question.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  96. Mary - California

    It depends what else is involved with this ban on Offshore Drilling.
    I would be surprised if Congress supported Bush, even on Offshore Drilling, with the few months he has left as President. This country needs to take some measures to be free of foreign oil, but until all the alternatives are discussed, not much we can do at present.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  97. Mike - Pueblo, CO

    Jack – Let’s see, in the short term, do I protect pristine areas and go bankrupt feeding my car cornahol, or feed my family but sully the landscape with a few more oil rigs, pipelines, refineries and the like while we develop alternative fuels? Do I want my country to take control of its own destiny, or hand the keys to my country and car to OPEC? That congress would even debate these no-brainer questions demonstrates the level of contempt they have for the American public and the country they purport to serve. – Mike

    July 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  98. Billy G in Las Vegas

    I hear all this radical garbage about "we won't get any oil from continental shelf drilling for 10+ years" from the radical enviromentalists. can you imagin if the country had that attitude when JFK said "we chose to go to the moon" in the early 1960's? the headlines sometime in the mid 1970's would have been "Soviet Cosmonauts First to Land On the Moon"

    lifting the offshore drilling ban is maybe the ONE thing George Bush has done that is logically CORRECT during his whole administration and even THAT just unscrews what his father screwed up in 1990.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  99. Chicago Bob from Illinois

    No. It's another Grand Oil Party ripoff. Bush and Cheney will return to the oil business after January and they are trying to make sure they will get big bucks.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  100. John, Fort Collins, CO

    We Americans need to focus on reducing the demand for domestic oil, not on increasing the supply. High gas costs are short term pain for long term gain. We are already seeing the development of 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in electric cars, the expansion of alternative forms of transportation, and new sources of clean energy. We should save the remaining domestic oil reserves for future generations and national emergencies.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  101. Shirley-Ohio

    Only if there is going to be relief at the gas pumps the day after they start drilling.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  102. james tilton

    NO! Unless you want to see the oil companies continue to foul the planet and still take us to the financial cleaners over gas prices...

    July 15, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  103. sandy in Ohio

    Jack, If we increase our supply of crude oil today where will it be refined? Our refineries are operating at full capacity now. Ask Canada if having access to more crude has made their gas prices go down, the answer is no. Off shore drilling will do one thing, give the oil companies more crude to sell to the highest bidder. We would just be competing with China and all the other nations as we are now. Since they have more money, who do you think would get the oil? No to off shore drilling and yes to more wind, solar and water power. This is a no brainer.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  104. Gwinn Oregon

    Yes, if this is one way to be indepentent of foriegn oil, lowers cost, provides jobs here in the good old U.S. A. I'm all for it.

    Gwinn

    July 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  105. richard

    Off course we are going to need oil in the near future. Plus unclear
    energy .Read nuclear. The one TRILLION DOLLAR war will cost us ,meaning you, the future cost of the obligations to the men and women and their children maybe another TWO TRILLION euroes .We are not done but half of us are real close to it. Read half of us as ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS .Buy the way who will pay for all the new cars that will have to be made, Go figure.Thank you jack You are Jack with me. GO FIGURE.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  106. Tom - Las Vegas, Nevada

    I don't oppose offshore drilling, or even expanding drilling in Alaska. But I do believe the issue has no bearing on energy prices right now or even in the near future.

    Right now there are available leases for offshore and Alaskan drilling that aren't even allocated. The real problem isn't with the availability of areas in which to drill it's with the inability to motivate oil companies to spend additional money to drill. Why spend money to develop new sources of oil when the current system is raking in record profits.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  107. Judy, Exeter, Ca

    It should be obvious to all that Bush is merely trying to placate the american public with this maneuver. It means nothing. and the informed public know it is not an immediate solution. Congress is already in enough trouble with the voters. If they go along with this, they will most certainly expedite their political demise. Every day the Bush administration comes up with a new way to slap the american middle class accross the face. There are more and better solutions than more of the same.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  108. Kevin in Denver

    I often find myself asking my kids – "and if your goofy friend jumped off a bridge would you follow." Same analysis.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  109. TR in TX

    Absolutely not! That would only perpetuate our dependence on oil.

    Honda Motors recently unveiled its FCX Clartiy automobile which runs on a hydrogen fuel cell with zero emissions. They also have developed a Home Energy Station which has been operational in Torrance, CA since 2003. The Home Energy Station uses Natural Gas to heat the home, produce electricity for the home and convert Natural Gas to Hydrogen to fuel the vehicle. Honda claims this home produces 30% less emissions than a home using Natural Gas, commercial electricity and gas powered cars.

    American automaker and energy companies need to begin having the vision and initiative to bring these types of products to the U.S. Market instead of bringing 'more of the same'. They need to develop alternative fuel vehicles and most importantly, the supply line to bring the fuel to market nation wide. This would not only reduce our demand for oil but would also reduce emissions and provide new jobs. Unfortunately it will take government to force business to do this by not allowing an expansion of the status quo.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  110. Allen from Pa.

    Not no but he–no.Make them drill where they have leases and do alternative engery.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  111. Swiss Obama Fan

    NO. Do you really have to destroy everything just for a few bucks????? It is bad enoug Americans think gas prices are the biggest problem. they have.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  112. Allen L Wenger

    No, even his own economic staff say this will not help for years, if ever. This is just the last effort of a pathetic president to shift the blame of his failed policies.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  113. Jan Davis, Knoxville, TN

    Why make the oilmen Bush and Cheney any richer than they already are plus ruin the environment along the coastline! Personally I would prefer alternative sources for gasoline. Never trust the Republicans to do anything to help the average guy!

    July 15, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  114. Kristen- Philadelphia, PA

    Jack, why do we refuse to invest as much time and money into other energy sources as we do in oil. The problem is not so much our dependence on foreign oil but our dependence on oil all together. We currently drill oil here and on average it’s comparable to the global market price. What makes people think that drilling for more oil off shore is going to make oil prices go down? This is a global market we are talking about and as demand continues to rise so will the price.

    So no, congress should not go a long with lifting this ban. How about all of these people finally put there vote where there mouth is and vote on renewable energy bill. They talk about it during election season for them then when vote time comes all we hear are oil discussions.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  115. George (Somerville, NJ)

    No!!

    America needs to be the leader in alternate enegry for the world. We need to break our addiction to oil for a better tomorrow. The pain of $4/gal gas breaks all of our backs and there is no better time than the present to refine, replace, and reduce our enegry consumption here in America.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  116. Jim Hough

    No! This is not a states right issue as John McCain is stating. What goes on in our off-shore waters affects us all economically and environmentally, and not just one state. Unless meaningful supplies are discovered which can significantly reduce the cost of oil and derivitive products, all we are doing is making more money for big oil here in the states. Do you really believe that Exxon-Mobil will sell any oil they discover to Americans at a cheaper price than it would bring on the world markets? Anyone who believes that is in la-la land for sure! If we are to save our environment, we must move past carbon based energy sources and any further supplies discovered would only delay that process.

    Jim
    Prosperity SC

    July 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  117. Holly in Knightdale, NC

    Let's see...we have oil available to us that the President doesn't want to touch so that he can line his pockets when he leaves office with the profits of offshore drilling. YEP!! Sounds like an election year to me!

    I think America as a whole will not only be celebrating having a new President but also celebrating that the idiot that was elected will be gone!

    If people can't see his self-serving tactics I'm just glad Pelosi can!

    July 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  118. Bob from Richmond VA

    Jack, Offshore drilling may become our best interim option but it is certainly not step 1. We must first develop an alternative energy plan and ensure that the necessary investments are made to get us beyond our dependency on oil. Weaning ourselves off of oil will take years, perhaps decades, so we need to get started now. If we start by increasing supply, we take the pressure off temporarily but we don't solve anything.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  119. Bobby in Brooklyn, NY

    Dear Jack,

    Drill offshore, drill in Anwar...heck, since my monthly expenditure for gasoline exceeds my car payment, the oil companies can drill in my swimming pool for all I care.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  120. Kirven Dunham

    No way. The oil companies has several thousands arces of land to drill on including some off shore and they are not using it. Why should we endanger the environment so that a few fat cats can get even bigger.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  121. Tony from Torrington

    No. I have put a windmill on the top of my car and it only takes 4 hours for me to get to work, about 2 miles away. The other day I stuffed a bushel of corn into my gas tank and that worked just fine too. Tomorrow I plan to look into other alternative fuels and will let you know how I do. Let the oil stay in the ground, and let the environmental lobbyists keep paying off those in congress. They need more money to pay for their planes and limos.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  122. Len in Clarkston, WA

    No, Jack, they shouldn't.
    -Why aren't they drilling on their current leases?
    -Why aren't they emptying the nearly 400,000 capped wells that already exist in this country? These capped wells reportedly have enough crude left in them to supply this country with 12 million barrels a day for 40 years!

    Off-shore drilling won't save us from the "Oil Boogey Man." We have to stop using so much. This is the fault of all of us. Politicians and citizens alike.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  123. Amanda

    If Bush, McCain and the majority of Republicans are in favor of this, it can't be a good idea.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  124. Sandra fromTexas

    Absolutely not. This offshore drilling is just a Republican talking point. Another excuse for them to wreck the environment for all of us. If we had stayed with Jimmy Carters Energy Plan we would be in a much better place today. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans here we sit in a much worse place than we were in the 70's. My question is where are we going to be 30 years from now?

    July 15, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  125. Terry in Hanover County

    It's another bandaid treatment for a long-infected wound that's hemorrhaging. The oil companies have plenty of leases and haven't bothered to drill on what they have. This is one more example of our government being controlled by corporate greed.

    It's long overdue that we pursue economically feasible installation and use of solar and wind power; fix the pollution problems from the use of coal; and increase protection for all when using nuclear power. Do whatever it takes, but let's finally get off our current energy drug of choice – oil. Or, we can just sleep through another 30 years, give Big Oil what it wants and watch the parties in D.C. point fingers at one another. Who knows? Maybe the next time Big Oil wants to drill somewhere it will be in the Rose Garden or perhaps our own backyards.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  126. Ryan, Champaign IL

    Oil plummetted today on news of reduced demand and Ben Bernanke’s congressional testimony, until… Bush demanded more drilling this morning, causing oil to rebound. Interesting reaction from the market, for a measure that he proclaims would lower prices.
    My solution: No more proclamations from this failure. He is merely trying to make sure that his last steps on his way out of office are on our backs.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  127. Jerry

    Only when they drill on the 68 million acres of land that they presently have leases on and haven't drilled one hole. This is just another attempt by Shrub Bush and his oil buddies to gain control of all the land possible before he leaves office. Someone needs to tell Bush and big oil that enough is enough. They have raped the american people long enough. Bush needs to wake up and join the real America.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  128. Christine

    Some one please drill or come up with another form of transportation that doesn't depend on oil and its speculators.... They have got us by the (blanks) and we are suffering because of it. It's time America had a revolt with people who are playing with our lives and our very existence... The price of gas is almost as much as minimum wage. Wake up America it is time to protes 1960's style.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  129. Randy, Salt Lake City

    Naw, it 's just to make Joe Six-pack and Sally Saddlebags feel better as they munch on cheese doodles while watching cars go around in an oval (i.e. NASCAR).

    The worse part is that -it'll work! Most 'Murikans" are mouth-breathing morons who believe everything our first-living-brain-donor of a president says. Put a fork in this country, we're done!

    July 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  130. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    Seeing that the cost of a barrel of oil has nothing to do with supply and demand, which the oil companies have admitted, drilling will do nothing to lower the price and nothing to lower prices on anything else. What it will do is make Georgie's little oil rich friends richer.
    Seeing that China is our adoptive parent, don't they have any oil under their dirt we can drill for so we can trade them what is left of our country?

    July 15, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  131. Matt Callaway in Omaha, NE

    They should absolutely not go along with the President. Our efforts and wealth should be spent on a permanent transition away from all fossil fuels.

    The U.S. has "interests" in the Middle East because we rely on their oil and natural gas for a portion (not a majority) of our supply. In stead of spending $700billion+ on a war to advance those interests we could have built and installed a whole hell of a lot of wind turbines and solar panels and done a lot of research into cellulosic and algae-based alternative fuels. THAT is what would have been in the national interest and likely cost 0 lives.

    July 15, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  132. john marlton nj

    Yes, why not. The Democrats could create a flip flop ad using media clips of Bush 41 enacting the ban and Bush 43 lifting the ban… got lemons ..make lemonade. …

    July 15, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
  133. Chris from KC

    Jack: If it takes the oil 5 years to come on line, I'm sure we can build some new refineries by then. I like how you frame this debate as silly. I'm glad you think people not being able to pay mortgage payments are silly too. The USA consumes 21 million barrels of oil per day. The Strategic Reserve has 700 million barrels. That is 33 days for you liberal hacks counting. The short term on this problem is 5 years not 5 minutes. Drill or be drilled.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  134. Jay, Denver CO

    If we don't another country will. So we might as well.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  135. Vicki Bronson

    If off shore drilling is so great now, why wasn't it great during the 6 years the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Could it be that they were working with the oil companies to get the prices as high as possible? Now the Republicans want to blame the Democrats that they are responsible for shortages.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  136. Tom C, Stuart, Fl

    Hell ya! Let'em drill for oil. In 10 years the off-shore rigs will be under water. So will almost eveything else.Let's keep melting the ice caps, then we want need cars we can just crawl over each other to get where we want to go, which want be very far. Oh, I forgot, God told Bush global warming was all in Al Gore's mind.

    Tom C. Stuart,Fl.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  137. Kent Fitzsimmons,Illinois

    No.........this is a political stunt from the GOP. Bush hasn't been so interested in getting things done in 7 1/2 yrs as he is now. Go Big Oil !

    July 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  138. tamika

    I certainly hope that congress continues to stand in the way of off-shore drilling. The President is the one who does not hear the frustrations of the American people. We want real solutions, not gimmicks, to fix this problem. Lifting the ban does not fix this problem. Alternative energy sources should play larger roles in solving the energy crisis. I agree with T. Boone Pickens that "we can't drill our way out of this".

    July 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  139. Jim S

    This is nothing but Republican politics. If this issue were so important, why didn't Bush lift the ban on off-shore drilling during the 6 years the Republicans have controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress? Moreover, he could have lifted it any time he chose by executive order without playing politics with it. Bottom line is that it will have virtually NO impact on gasoline prices in the short term which is hurting America's working class and the potential harm to the environment is huge. If Bush really were a leader, he would have pushed for an effective energy policy long ago rather than pander to the giant oil companies with huge tax breaks for doing nothing more than usual. Finally, if he were the leader he should be NOW, he would form a group of some of the finest minds in this country, (yes we do have some) and instruct t hem to work on this issue hard and provide monetary incentives to the private sector to come up with a workable plan to alleviate the problem. He's no leader....he's an incompetent politician and so are the rest. We are in real danger.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  140. Mark - Asheville, NC

    I hate to agree with Former Governor Bush on anything, but I am for doing “it all”: drilling, new energy sources, whatever it takes to become independent of foreign oil, and eventually independent of fossil fuels. Drilling now could serve as a ‘bridge’ to the latter, but the oil companies’ influence on Congress will have to be strictly controlled.

    As for Congress acting meaningfully now, that is about as likely as Saudi giving us a few billion barrels of free oil!

    July 15, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  141. Ron Montanez

    Absolutely not!!! This is more of big oil corporate greed. The answer will never solely be in finding more oil. The answer is the hydrogen cell vehicles, like the one Honda has already produced along with the hybrid vehicles. Automakers can also produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Bush will do anything to help corporations. Instead of this last desperate gasp to help his Wall Street friends he instead should be concentrating on the subpoenas he will be getting in @ a year.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  142. deano, Peoria, AZ

    Is Bush, The Joker, kidding. Does he really believe that jumping in ahead of the Democrats to "open up offshore drilling" (which isn't going to make a diddly-damn about gas prices for a long time), is going to fool the people into believing he is doing something to help them? This guy has the biggest set of testes (notice the politically correct names) for someone who is beyond useless and is trying to salvage anything in his lost presidential career. Well, I guess there are some people who really are out of touch enough to believe the gas prices will drop as a direct result of this.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  143. no way

    they should drill
    what are we going to wait another 20 years and say we should have drill why not?

    July 15, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  144. Foley in Idaho

    Sure Jack, if the reason the ban was put into effect is no longer relavent... oh...wait.... it still is relavent; so, the answer is no. Well, unless going backwards is their intent.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  145. Akeem Harding

    Congress should NOT follow suit with President Bush's lifting of the ban on offshore drilling. We do not need to waste money on more drilling and focus on fuel efficency and alternative fuels!!!!

    July 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  146. Michael in Vegas

    Sure, let's just follow this administration right into an even deeper petroleum pit. It will take ten years for new driilling to have any real results, but Bush and Cheney assure us there will be enough oil for everyone to eat and drink, since by then the climate will be too hot to grow anything but cacti, and drinkable water will even be more valuable than oil.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  147. Vicky - Missouri

    Let's quit fighting and take care of our family.

    My dad taught me to take care of myself and not expect someone else to do everything for me.

    I think this country needs to do what's best for itself and find it's own energy sources and quit depending on others. We need to make sure that our needs are met. We need to be aggressively drilling and also looking for alternative energy sources IMMEDIATELY!

    There need to be incentives for all americans to go to alternate means of transportation, incentives for cutting back on gas, incentives to drive smaller vehicles, tax breaks, yada, yada, etc, etc. A good tax break on a fuel saving vehicle, etc.

    Hey, I have an ATV. Why can't I drive that to work? It would use a lot less gas than a car and it's really not much different than a motorcycle.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  148. deano, Peoria, AZ

    No. Is Bush, The Joker, kidding. Does he really believe that jumping in ahead of the Democrats to "open up offshore drilling" (which isn't going to make a diddly-damn about gas prices for a long time), is going to fool the people into believing he is doing something to help them? This guy has the biggest set of testes (notice the politically correct names) for someone who is beyond useless and is trying to salvage anything in his lost presidential career. Well, I guess there are some people who really are out of touch enough to believe the gas prices will drop as a direct result of this.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  149. Cindi

    It's quite simple, Jack.
    If Bush and his family would get out of the oil business, we'd have all the cheap gas we could ever need.

    Des Moines, IA

    July 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  150. Joe Biggs

    Jack,

    Please tell the public where ALL the oil from the Alaskan pipe line goes!!! It will outrage many Americans to know 100% of the oil in Alaska is sold to JAPAN !!! So, why do they want to drill in Anwar if the oil from the Alaskan pipe line doesn't even go to American consumers.
    It's politics as usual and BIG OIL companies lining the pockets with OUR resources.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  151. Julie from LA

    Again, Bush USES fear and anxiety to frighten Americans into doing the wrong thing.

    The only people who will be helped by offshore drilling are Bush's buddies in the oil business.

    What a surprise.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  152. Robert Postuma

    Why lift the ban on off-shore drilling?
    There is enough oil in Alberta to supply the States for decades to come
    So what's the problem?

    July 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  153. RIGHTon in MN

    Only if we don't want to be paying $10.00 a gallon for gas in 2010.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  154. John

    The candidates keep saying we need to stop our dependancy on foreign oil but I just found out yesterday that we have been EXPORTING some of our oil to other countries. Also, is the oil that is being pumped out of Alaska going to Japan? If this is true, why are we EXPORTING it and then IMPORTING oil from other countries?? It doesn't make sense.

    John
    Sacramento, CA

    July 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  155. Matt, Berkeley, CA

    No way! Drilling offshore is not a short term plan because we wouldn't get oil for 5-10 years. It's also not a long term plan because (1) there isn't enough oil to sustain us for more than a few years and (2) a clean, safe, and reliable energy future is dependent on transitioning away from hydrocarbons. Why can't the oil companies take all the money it would take to drill offshore and invest it in exploiting more effective renewable energy sources?

    July 15, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  156. Heidi

    Why in the world would anyone want to drill for more oil (that we can't refine, as you pointed out). Isn't it like a dog chasing its tail? When it's done running, it's right back where it started out. We have free energy in the sun and in hydrogen, but we've been herded toward oil for decades by those who profit from it. I don't see a lot more promise from our two major candidates for President. A circus for four more years unless the American people see our government for the tailchasing dogshow it is and do something–like find another candidate for President–personally I think a Ron Paul write-in campaign is our only hope

    July 15, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  157. bridgette

    Our government is so reactionary. Has anyone ever took the time too see if this would be really worth while. Or should we try to destroy our dependency on oil all together.

    July 15, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  158. Bobby in Brooklyn, NY

    Dear Jack ,

    Drill offshore, drill in Anwar...and since my monthly expenditure for gasoline now exceeds my car payment, the oil companies can drill in my swimming pool if it can provide us some relief at the gas pumps.

    P.S., How soon before I see you on the Subway?

    July 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm |
  159. Kevin

    Jack, maybe if we had wind powered oil rigs the tree huggers would be happy. No the ban should not be lifted, it will solve nothing. Alternative environmentally friendly is the only answer. All the money GM will save cutting off medical benefits for their retirees should be a good start to this critical reengineering process.

    Kevin
    Warren, MI

    July 15, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
  160. John Arnold....KY

    What has happened to Ethnol? Why is no one considering this any more? Why where wanting to suck all the life out of are land and now seas we have a source of fuel that will never run dry, and no one is puhing to see all gas pumps have that option. 80 years is all we have to fix this crisis and we need to go green NOW just becuase it makes since and will put more money back in are pockets and it will save the planet. The US needs to invest in solar, windpower, and Ethnol production and implention NOW.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
  161. BWM

    Anyone who agrees with either Bush or McCain is insane. McSane is truly living in the past. Chekosivokia? My grandson knows better. And you smart people think he is equipped to lead this country. He is a puppet for Bush who agrees with whatever Bush says.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
  162. Richard White

    Worried about the economy? In the fall 2007 I retired after 30 yrs. as a college prof. in a small private college. With 401K's taking a dive (the great hope of the Reagan admin. and the 1970's), inflation growing, etc. I was 78 yrs old when I retired. Should have planned to work until I
    was 100yrs. Feel really sorry for the young people including my 9 grandchildren!

    July 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
  163. LELOBO

    Yes, but impose sevfere penalties and fines for any discharge of oil on our shores, accidental or not.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  164. John

    Absolutely, Congress should agree with the president and lift the ban. We need to produce our own energy and stop sending all of our dollars to the Middle East. We also need to construct additional refineries. Yes, the democrats are responsible for this crisis we are in. They have been standing in the way of any progress towards energy independence. Gasoline was in the $2.00 range when Miss Pelosie said she would work to lower gasoline prices. What's the price now? It certainly is not lower.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  165. JoMc, NY

    My comment about allowing offshore drilling.

    ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

    Offshore drilling is not the answer to our problem. Even if we did drill and not one drop was spilled, we would still be burning fossil fuels and that is hurting our environment. We need to work on renewal energy and end the addiction to oil. In the same time it would take to get the first barrel out of the ground we could achieve independence from oil. Renewal energy is the way to go. What are we waiting for??/

    July 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  166. Marilyn Miller

    We absolutely should NOT drill for oil offshore. This is just another ploy to put more money in the oil companies so they can finance
    and buy more Congresspersons to do their bidding. Alternative
    energy is the real answer. Not necular power unless we can figure out how to nuterlize the wastes. Burying it in the ground is not the answer. Wind, Sun are the way to go. Illinois

    July 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  167. Mark Benezra

    We hear a lot of alternative talk about different energy sources such as sun power, electric power and other energy sources, but its not clear to me as a viewer which method of energy technology is the way to end dependence on oil. Off shore drilling should be kept as an option even if it will take some time to see positive results until the government finds a solid solution for energy that it can adopt and share with the public. If other solutionx can be implemented quicker then so be it. Let us know.
    Mark

    July 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  168. BWM

    Off shore drilling would be fine, only if it means, we the people, can drill some sense into both McSane and McBush.

    South Orange,NJ

    July 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  169. William Phillips

    As an Alaskan citizen and Alaska native I personally have no problem with the offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR. Dont we have the EPA to keep the environment safe. If it benefits our economy why not? Alaskan citizens recieve yearly dividends because of the pipe line. If we are short on refineries why not cut in to that yearly dividend to get U.S refineries up and running? Doesn't it make sense? It sure does to me! I can live one year without a dividend to help my country!

    July 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  170. Parker in Covington KY

    Boy, isn't blaming Congress for out of control oil prices just classic Bush? I'm amazed that anyone buys his crap any more. Here's the truth: by the time any new oil wells came on line (even by the time a new refinery could be built) the American people shouldn't need any. None. Fossil fuel needs to go the way of whale oil immediately. Convert government fleets to electric. Convert every car to flexfuel. Drop the silly culture war and allow hemp to be grown for biofuel. Wind, solar, whatever. The point is that: if we need that oil ten years from now we will have done everything tragically wrong. I'm personally miffed that the Republicans choose this digression rather than get on with the business of rescuing this country from this crisis. If they really want to be patriots...well, distracting the country with this argument isn't going to help.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  171. Dan Travis

    Once again, you have missed the boat. You have thrown out the billions of acres of leases oil companies now have but have failed to report why drilling has not taken place. I realize this is an opinion piece but at least do some homework.

    Having said that, strategically, why wouldn't the Dems open up drilling offshore. If oil companies choose to pay for additionally leases and then not drill in those areas, the American people are no worse off than we are today. Likewise, if they do drill and find oil, americans win. This should be a no-brainer decision.

    In the mean time, there is nothing stopping us from aggressively pursuing alternatives for fossil fuels. One does not negate the other as you may have us believe.

    By the way, doing both produces thousands of new jobs for Americans and I am confident that some of those laid off in Detroit would like access to those jobs.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  172. Charles Priest

    Americans need to keep reminding themselves that our President and Vice President were both oilmen before they became politicans. What have they done in the nearly eight years they have help office? Doubled the price of gasoline, almost tripled the price of oil, used our country's financial and military resources to gain access to Iraq oil fields that our major oil companies have not had for decades, and now as a parting gift make the case for them to have new oil reserves in this country that they can sqeeze in the future. They already export one and a half million barrels of domestic production overseas to countries willing to pay more. Don't be fooled. This is not about our energy security. It is about how to make a buck on future higher priced oil.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  173. Mike

    Boeing is producing bio-fuel from algae. This algae absorbs carbon dioxide as they grow and feed on sewage. Why don't we turn every waste water treatment facility in America into a bio-fuel plant?

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  174. Susan

    Of course Congress should not capitulate to Bush on the matter of offshore drilling. Such action would not affect gas prices for many years. Plus, who is to say oil companies would even sell the oil domestically? They are exporting much oil, even today!

    Thank you for pointing out the refinery bottleneck. The US oil industry, we know from documents in the 1990's, purposefully stymied refinery capacity in an attempt to increase gas prices.

    The oil barons should not be trusted with anything anymore, much less the well-being of our coastal areas.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  175. Jimmy

    Jack, I believe it is in our interest, to lift the ban, but it seems by the time we get the crude and turn it into fuel, the prices would be near $10.00 a gal. Also you need to somehow get through the enviromentalist or liberals,which would do everything in their power to stop it. I think it just may be a little too long for the process, to get the fuel prices at a reasonable rate. Whose to say the oil companies,wouldn't lower the prices anyway. They the congress, should have seen this coming nearly 20 years ago. Thanks Jack, for setting the record straight.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  176. Damon Kennedy, Midland, Texas

    Absolutely not! The Bush administration and the blame game? How about a quick glance in the mirror. Bush continues to deny any responsibility for any failure of the previous seven years. Where does it end? Thankfully in the upcoming election. Bush is correct, however, determining whether or not any offshore drilling should occur is an issue for Democrats – Barack Obama at the helm!

    July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  177. kathy

    Doesn't it look a little odd that oil and gas prices go skyrocketing in the waning days of what might be the last GOP adminstration for years? It just has an orchestrated feel that time is running out on convincing the public of the need to drill in every available inch of the country and its coastlines and what better way to get the attention and their support than $4 or $5 gas because gas at $3 didn't do it. This administration has worked too closely with the oil industry for it to be just a coincidence. We need to develop a comprehesive energy policy that doesn't rely on oil as the only major energy source giving too much power to one industry and making us reliant on other countries for our ability to get to work.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  178. Robert H. Pike

    Sure we should continue our addiction to oil by allowing offshore oil drilling....and while we're at it, let's legalize Heroin to make it easy on the Afghanistan economy to flourish!

    Schwartzenegger had it right (by objecting to it), and the situation room gave us a brief peek in the future by showing us those solar cars. Let's push the new technology (like Obama suggested today) to get the alternative fuels – and eventually no fuels, just solar, wind, water, tidal and their electric derivatives that produce zero emissions and zero heat pollution, in to reality before it's too late!

    July 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  179. Kenny in NC

    NO. Congress and the people need to understand that drilling off shore and the construction of wind energy and it's infrastructure would take about the same amount of time to deliver it to this country. We need to get off our butts and go for the alternative forms of energy. Drilling offshore does not mean the oil recovered would be refined and sold here in the USA. The oil companies could and probably would sell it in the market that pays the most for it. Hence the highest return on the investments of it's shareholders.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  180. Bryan Glass

    Bryan from Kennesaw, Ga.

    Jack we were in this situation 20 years ago, now we are in this situation once again, and if we do in fact start drilling, and the demand for oil goes up once again, in say 20 years or so? Shouldn't we be working towards a long term solution and alternate resources so we don't have to keep putting this problem off on our kids? At this point our children's kids will be dealing with this. It is very narrow minded to assume if we drill for oil everything will be peachy.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  181. Fred Hanna

    MY God Jack, if President Bush was a Doctor and his fix for the economy was a diagnosis he would be sued for Mal Practice.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  182. Dan of Summerfield, Florida

    Yes, Congress should lift the ban. Otherwise the President and Vice-President will lose all of their credibility with the big oil firms. After all, a promise is a promise.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  183. Ray Dumont

    Does anyone think that oil from offshore drilling will not be sold to the highest bidder whether it is, to China or India or some other country? The oil companies will benefit but not necessarily our country. Oil is a world commodity and it doesn't matter were it comes from. Who ever want to pay the most gets it.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  184. Christopher

    Offshore drilling is a total hoax. I mean many top economist say that its just like being 6 months down in your Mortage Payment and looking for change in the couch. I mean its such a joke. America needs to get off this terrible source of energy and look to invest more in wind solar and natural gas. Too bad thats not gonna happen with the sorry excuse of Representives with have in Washington. I mean the technologys are there and yet we refuse to invest. The oil companies must be paying big bucks to the Represenitives sorry I really shouldn't call them that. More like giant crooks that are looking to expand their own wallets even at the cost of the American People. Know wonder there approval rating is at 9%. The American people are just starting to wake up! I mean I can't vote until four more years and when i do vote I'll make sure I make it count.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  185. John

    Absolutely. Congress should go along with the President. Call his bluff. Let the American people see the truth firsthand. Every proposed solution for easing the energy crisis is a failure. Barring an unexpected invention of cold fusion, we have a long long way before we can dig ourselves out of the mess Bush has dug us into. In the meantime, our so-called Arab allies will continue to flourish while we protect their backyards with American lives and fortunes.

    John
    New York

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  186. Maureen Headington

    Absolutely not! This is nothing more than a parting gift to his oil friends and family. How much more damage can this man do before his term is up? We need leadership, not lobbyists and cronyism!

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  187. lawton watson

    Canada can and is supplying us wiith all the enviromentally polluting crude we will need for years to come. Whats the rush? What exactly is the behind the push to ruin Florida's beaches? Do you have any thoughts on this Jack? If so give us your opinion. Are they afraid of what a new president will limit the oil giants greedy aspirations to?

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  188. Mike from Ohio

    You're right Jack. For years, neither Democrats nor Republicans have done anything to avoid what inevitably was bound to happen given global demand for oil. We were predicting this in MBA school 3 years ago...and we're "amatuers!" For politicians to say they truly care about this issue and for us to take them at their word is embarrassing!

    I don't see any alternative energy source that will serve as a "full replacement" to fossil fuels at this point in time. If price speculation based on future supply and demand is driving some of the cost, then let's take some steps today, even if they won't produce anything tangible until the future. It should still lower prices, right?

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  189. Laura Garner

    No, we should not lift the ban on offshore drilling. It will not lower the price of gas more than a few cents, and frankly, I think that Bush just wants to help his oil buddies make billions more. We need to use solar more, after all we see the sun almost every day. Also, an oil spill is way too large of a risk to take.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  190. Bill, Virginia Beach

    Offshore oil drilling is largely a pig in a poke, except we don't even know if there is a pig in the poke. We should at least ok limited exploratory drilling to see if there is anything out there if someone is even willing to look. This is largely a Republican "oil slick" political tactic. They knew there had been an executive order against offshore drilling since Bush's father, but they have been acting like this did not exist and everything was the Democrat's fault. In Virginia or New Jersey, if there is oil offshore, why hasn't anybody tried drilling onshore?

    July 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  191. Michael McGovern

    They say there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. When talking about current leases you need to know if those could be productive. No use spending money trying to get oil if it isn't there. I don't know where the current leases are but the statistic isn't valid without knowing if there is any oil there. I believe we should make our known oil available to our companies. It will create jobs. Just starting the process will cause a domino effect that will be more good than bad.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  192. kevin

    Ok, we are talking about drill ing off shore right, are we not in a country where 5,000 American have died? A country where blackmarket oil is going on? Where money is needed and owed for services rendered. And if we increase supply might that not drop current prices now. I ‘m not a educated idiot like those in charge but would this not work now. A why as no one in our leadership discussed this including Dick (Vader) Cheney. Hey foreclose on me use that same tactic on Iraq. Then we won’t be whining like Dr. Phil says.

    July 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm |