1- Nothing stops us from drilling and developing alternative energy at the same time, so that's a false dichotomy.

2- While it's true that conservatives might be susceptible to sacrifice long-term financial for the short term, at the very least there's no question that conservatives are concerned about financial impact primarily. They really do want to reduce the price of gas.

Liberals, on the other hand, also have environmentalism and redistribution as part of their decision-making process. It's disingenuous to pretend both parties have economic interests as their highest priority. There's no reason to think liberals would be for drilling under any circumstances, just like many conservatives would never be for withdrawal from Iraq.

The people getting hurt by high gas prices won't let either party slide by, and good for them. It's elitist to act as if this is part of an American "do something, anything" mentality; people are really getting hammered by this.

Which is why drilling will be a reality soon, no matter how many liberals write articles pretending that short-term or long-term economy are their primary concerns. And of course the drilling won't bring any oil to market immediately; it'll be the impact on the speculators and OPEC of a demonstrative effort by their largest consumer to wean themselves off the teat that will put downward pressure on the price of oil.

I work in the energy industry, my customers are small electric utilities in Arkansas to ISOs (or the equivalent of ISOs) in New Zealand, and while that doesn't make me an unimpeachable authority, my small view of the industry indicates that it isn't some insane addiction to evil black goo that has stopped us from pursuing the solar/wind types of solutions; it's that they're not feasible or they're cost-prohibitive. On top of that, these are solutions for energy for the grid, not energy for transportation, and it's transportation that uses the vast majority of petroleum resources so quit conflating the separate issues. Solar does jack to power your car and never will.

The only way solar and wind will ever contribute is if they are used to power the grid, which we then plug hybrids into. But nuclear will be used far, far, sooner because it's actually feasible unlike these other pipe dreams. You can't force investors to go down the road of something that is, at best, destined to provide a teeny tiny amount of energy at high cost. For Pete's sake, France isn't exactly the conservative bastion, why is France using nuke to mainly power their grid? Because aside from coal or gas-fired plants, nuke is the only other option that doesn't require your economy to collapse.

If we don't want to use coal/gas we will use nuke, that is a lead-pipe lock. If we don't want to use imported oil we will drill, that is another lock. The rest of the choices are fantasy unless you think America will stand for economic disaster, and they won't. There aren't enough suicidal greenies; all the liberals without armpit hair will face the hard choices long before ruin becomes an option.

Don't disagree at all that we can't drill our way out forever. All I want is the temporary downward pressure on oil prices to give us breathing room, that's it. And if you're for drilling on the continental shelf then you and I have no disagreement. You're right, it IS the coastline states who have been the obstructionists thus far (which is why McCain leaving it up to the states is considered a transparent dodge by conservatives like myself).

If you'll allow that it's a good idea to try for some temporary relief I'll concede that it's possible the downward pressure on gas prices may or may not be a huge thing, and further I'll go along that I want full-speed ahead towards an alternative solution such as hybrids in a nuke-powered grid or something else that is economically feasible and can provide more than a fraction of what we need.