$5 a gallon gas? Say it ain't so!

You are largely correct but the supply/demand equation of oil is a ticking time bomb that can not be resolved by more drilling.... $5 gasoline is nothing. It will be over $8 in our lifetime and no amount of drilling will prevent that.

SO you can aggressively repair the hole in the roof today ....or you can wait for the storm to come. We are currently on pace for the latter and that is the course we will stay on without a drastic change in our energy and consumption policy. There is an intelligent debate to be had on what technologies should play what kind of role in the future. If "more drilling" is sponcered as a means to buy time while we make the transition then I can support it - but only if it is coupled with aggressive moves towards an alternative energy future. Perhaps therein lies the compromise if such a thing is possible in Washington.

pj, there is no alternative that is even in some engineer's dream vision that will alleviate our society's need for oil. too many trucks, planes, ac's and home heating appliances. The benefits of telling the Royal House of Saud to take a hike are incalcuable.
And to 2 of Chilcoot's points. Healthcare and the will of the people. It is overwhelmingly the "will of the people" to sh!tcan the current Obamacare plan.
There's one way a society can help its poor and indigent, provide for its own needs and provide the highest standards of living possible for its citizenry. That's wealth creation, not redistribution. The more the government stifles wealth creation, the more the people lose. ie $5 a gallon.
We have lots of oil. Let's get it. And build more nuclear plants too. The wealth and benefits therefrom will better enable the development of the masses amounts of alternative power sources we will need eventually.

Thats the strategy we have pursued since the late 70's and nobody bothered to develop alternate energy technology and fuels and reduced consumption technology until we hit $4 gasoline a few years ago. And thats the path we'll stay on with your plan.

The private sector does not develop more expensive technology until it is profitable to do so - which is about the same time gas shoots up to $4 and beyond. So again, you can wait to repair the roof in the middle of the storm or you can do it now.

That is just factually false.

Quinnipiac:
30% say expand the new health care law
18% say leave it as it is
47% say repeal it

McClatchy-Marist
35% say change the new health care law to do more
16% say let it stand
11% say change it to do less
33% say repeal it completely

Anyone who thinks, as Malibugolfer apparently does, that the American public overwhelmingly wants to repeal the new health care law is wilfully ignorant. Anyone who knows that the American public is not overwhelmingly in favor of repeal, as Malubugolfer may, but says so anyway is a liar.

America has issues with it, no question, and few love it as passed. But it was a political compromise, so everyone will likely have issues with it. Those with any knowledge of our nation's history know that's how this democracy works.

PJ - using your analogy, drilling IS repairing the roof in the middle of the storm. Alternative fuels are installing a new roof. In the short term, you must do what is needed (i.e. Drill) and the US government has done everything in its power to prevent that. In the longer term we need a new roof - but Home Depot isn't selling shingles right now (i.e. Wind power, solar power, etc).

There are unintended consequences from government "nudging". For example, Mercury content in CFC bulbs in landfills possibly causing deaths for generations to come. How about tap water that can be lit on fire (ref: HBO GasLand) from natural gas drilling near homes. How about electric cars using more electricity when we cannot build nuclear powerplants resulting in more polution from coal.

My issue is the government continues to "nudge" us toward unproven solutions that may actually be worse than what we have today. As an American, I refuse to be "nudged" when I feel I am being "nudged" in the wrong direction.

Chilcoot, "factually false?" I looked at the Quinipac (I respect their objectivity btw) and wondered about their sample group. Given the figures you post, I wonder what some thought expand means? Allow interstate competition? Tort reform? Because to get those numbers how do you explain the other figure you omitted in the survey: "Looking at health care, 48 percent of independent voters, whose massive move to the Republicans in this month's election was a big reason for the GOP triumph, want it repealed, while 19 want it left unchanged and 26 percent want it expanded. "
Seems like a lot of Repubs would have to say expand to account for #'s posted taking into account the independents.

Chili,

Here's Rasmussen's latest poll for health care: Health Care Poll

60% REPEAL the national health care law(46% STRONGLY repleal)
36% Oppose repeal (27% strongly opposed to repealing)

So as we have said MANY times, a MAJORITY of the people want Obamacare REPEALED!!

Following with your logic above:

Anyone who thinks, that the American public overwhelmingly does not want to repeal the new health care law is wilfully ignorant. Anyone who knows that the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of repeal, but says they are not is a liar.

After their 2010 results, is anyone listening to Rasmussen? Of their 105 final polls, they substantially overestimated Republican support in over half of them, and had an average error of 6%. They don't call cell phones, which tends to exclude younger people, and they poll the first person who answers the phone, which creates a bias toward older people.

No wonder they are Fox's favorite pollster.

Liberal Tactic - if you cannot backup your arguments, impune the opponents source......

No smart people are.

Now that the 2010 elections are behind us, it's easy to see how well a pollster did in predicting election results.

Rasmussen did awfully, consistently overestimating in favor of the GOP.

"Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued."

It's entirely fair to cite to a Rasmussen poll, but only until one learns of their miserable track record.