McCain's off-shore drilling stance touches hot issue in New Jersey

...is that people are tired of paying four dollars a gallon for gasoline and they don't care about how a solution to the problem is found, they just want a solution.

No grandstanding on the "evils of Global Warming" is going to make people feel better about paying through the nose at the pump while they try to make a living.

It is absolutely imperative that we start drilling for our own oil and tapping into our own resources and it is absolutely foolish that we've simply been sitting on it for all these years.

Democrats have a long history and record of opposing this and at a time when people are growing more and more frustrated at the price of oil, John McCain stands to gain a lot of traction with this issue in New Jersey and across the nation.

Democracy is an awful way to run a country, but it's the best system we have.- Winston Churchill

Drill here, Drill now and save the Republic. If we don't the people who want to enjoy the NJ shore will never be able to afford to get there. WE WANT NObama !!! in NOV

I suspect that Martin doesn't really know very much about the real environmental risks of drilling in Anwar, or of going after the shale deposits, or the off-shore reserves, versus the benefits, both economic and national security related, that could be derived from securing additional sources of domestic crude.

All John McCain suggested was giving the states a voice when it comes to the moratorium.

I understand that the Governor said today that not one citizen in the State would be in favor of drilling off-shore.

Really? Well, then he would have nothing to fear with the conduct of a serious study of the risks and potential benefits (like the economic benefits to the State that McCain spoke of in his proposal) of drilling on the outer continental shelf, now would he?

Economic benefits . . . like not having to raise the tolls so high that everybody damn near owes their soul to the Turnpike and Parkway? 

Now, I do agree with Martin that there is no doubt that we need to vigorously pursue alternative sources of energy moving forward as well. But the biggest mistake we could make is to continue following the long-held national Democrat policy of finding any excuse at all not to drill for oil.

We can't continue to run on empty, but that is where the Democrats have been taking us.

And now, the Democrat nominee for President even says he kind of likes the high gasoline prices -- yep, Senator Obama said that.  Take a listen!  He did say he wishes they didn't happen quite so soon, but he doesn't mind the high prices.

It seems that everything you hear out of the Democrats these days is pinned on vague notions of hope and change, even with energy policy -- the "devoutly to be wished" policy of banking our entire economic future on unproven and likely inadequate green energy technologies.

Again, yes we should pursue them, and I would also add nuclear to his list as well, but I'm sure Martin will turn his nose up to that idea!

But we cannot just set aside our current means on the hope that it will fill all our needs. We need to drill here in the United States for oil as well. Otherwise, our economy risks ending up like the Blues Brothers "wish sandwich" -- two slices of bread, and you wish you had some meat!

by Trochilus

How many Jersey residents actually use the beaches, since a large amount of the beaches are off-limits to the "people". We drilled in the early 1980s but came up dry. Do you actually think that oil suddenly appeared since then. Alt energy. Dick Codey said that wind farms in the ocean will ruin the view from beach front houses. Which one is Codey's? Codey is echoing Ted Kennedy

A few notable points of interest for the NIMBYs. . .

1) The year of Katrina saw 4 major hurricanes run through the Gulf of Mexico, where there are thousands of oil platforms. Hundreds of platforms were damanged in those storms but not one drop of oil spilled into the Gulf. Not one.

2) An overwhelming majority of oil spills over the last few decades were the result of tanker accidents, not the results of oil platform accidents. Thus, buying foreign oil and having it shipped here is riskier than drilling for it an piping it to shore.

3) Buying foreign oil and having tankers burn carbon bringing it here is far more damaging to the environment than piping it to shore from platforms.

4) Oil platforms in the Gulf Coast have proven to be beneficial to underwater sea life as fish and other creatures live around them.

Bottom line, we should start drilling ASAP.

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill

All McCain is basically saying is give the decision to the states essentially.

I don't really see a problem in that and I'm a pretty big supporter of the environment.

Clearly something needs to be done about the energy crisis and while I'm more of a fan of going nuclear (hell France gets over 75% of it's energy from nuclear), I don't see a problem in letting states decide whether they want to offshore drill or not. I think we all know NJ would be a No and our closest neighbors would probably be a No as well.

With all due respect to McCain apologists on this pro-drilling stance, this is not the right direction for our country and its energy plan – even if the president couches it is such conservative code as “let the state’s decide.”

Oil companies are reaping in record profits, Wall St. speculators are making the problem worse by increasing the domestic price of oil, and a windfall tax is needed to return some of the oil company profits back to the consumer. While poster like Trochilus may make wrongheaded assessments about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge (drilling and more drilling is the answer for them), the facts remain that drilling there could create an environmental disaster of epic proportions, and this would only marginally (1-2% of domestic production) affect domestic gas prices some 5-10 years down the line. According to the National Resources Defense Council, “it's [ANWR} spread across the coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, which would require vast networks of roads and pipelines that would fragment the habitat, disturbing and displacing wildlife.”

Obama’s answer, on energy policy and other domestic and international policies, is far superior to the shortsighted one offered by McCain, who keeps swinging to the right to cater to the Republican base. We’ve already got the technology for increasing fuel efficiency in cars two-fold, we’ve got solar and wind power technological capability, and we’ve done the hard part with ethanol conversion – now it’s a matter of having capital invested in these emerging renewable technologies, decreasing our dependency on foreign and domestic oil, and looking forward with a real energy policy (not drill, drill, drill).

Martin, Just look what we make from oil. The whole petro chemical industry depends on oil. Try flying a 777 on Solar power ? The Obama answer to Tax, Tax Tax will get your automobile no where. Obamas policy superior ? NOT Obamas policy will send us all to the poor house.

Martin, stop the partisan garbage and look at the facts as they've been presented. Your comments about "Bush & McCain" are feeble attempts to tie the two together because you want Obama to win the general election.

I just don't see the need to introduce the partisan bashing here, unlike you. I mean, I could go on about how Obama claims to be for "change and unity," while calling women "Sweetie," moving headscarved Muslim women out of view of photo op's and attending a racially divisive church for two decades, but that's not the point.

The point is that piping oil from platforms off the coastline and from rigs in Alaska is far safer and eco-friendly that having it shipped here on fuel-burning tankers. End of story.

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill

Folks,

MartinOne will keep gamely coming back here over and over and over.

Martin must honestly believe the essence of winning an argument is grasping in desperation for the last word, no matter how inapt or unconvincing his position may be.

He also apparently believes that that parroting, or should I more accurately say, regurgitating the breathless gibberish from some leftist think tank, will somehow win converts to his side!  (Insert Hillary cackle here!)

Who knows . . . by tomorrow he may be citing with theoretical admiration the moronic plan advanced by some House Democrats today -- i.e., to ape the Hugo Chavez model of governance here in the United States, by nationalizing this nation’s oil refineries.

Yep. They believe the same sorts of folks who have established such a fine record running Amtrack, or administering the teaching of children in our cities’ schools, should now be put in charge of the nation's oil refineries!

"House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply."

The back story is that they were apparently having serious problems with several members about to defect to the Administration’s call for lifting the moratorium, so they lifted the bill and someone came up with this brainchild!

Frankly, I think a clever Republican response would be to put the "idea" in amendment form for "study" purposes, and then try and force a vote on it, by making it the "order of the day."

How about it Martin, you going with the nationalization model, or are you going to stick to the original Democrat plan, which has been to systematically shut down production of crude in this nation in order to force a crisis over inevitable high prices of gas and heating oil, all for political gain?

by Trochilus