The NYT is nothing but liberal propaganda and not worth the paper it's printed on, as far as the Right is concerned. So, why are they upset? Perhaps McCain should submit his piece to the Washington Times instead.

I stated, "The only thing more drilling would really accmplish is to put off the inevitable."

To which you replied, "I disagree. The other thing it would do is lessen our dependence on foreign oil (sourced by people who hate us, according to salon). By lessening dependence on the middle east, we increase our security.'

We import about 70% of our oil. We're just no sitting on top of enough oil to put a big dent in that figure. I'm all for lessening dependence on the middle east, but still, as the resources are finite, and with RISING global demand, Econ 101 says that prices will go up.

Don't worry, though. As someone pointed out upthread, "The Free Market" (that term shouldn't even exist - if you really think any markets are "free" I have a bridge I would like to sell you) will play a heavy hand in reshaping our lifestyles and how we use energy.

"Had we drilled in Anwar when Bush proposed it, that oil would be on the market today. And before you give me the Anwar can only supply xx barrels of oil, we should also be taking advantage of other domestic sources; shale and off-shore."

Two things:

1) That oil would be on which market? The global market? Should the government mandate that oil recovered from new drilling in ANWAR/Florida/California be sold only on American markets? If it is sold on the global market, it would probably command a higher price since global demand is skyrocketing compared to American demand, high as it is. Therefore, I would bet that the oil companies would much rather sell on the global market.

2) The only thing more drilling would really accmplish is to put off the inevitable. There's X amount of oil. Period. Perhaps more drilling can buy us some more time to develop other means of powering our world, but that's about it. Increasing global demand for a dwindling resource will only cause prices to rise, no matter how much drilling you do.

After one selection cycle and one election cycle during which we were told by the MSM how "presidential" GWB looked and an MSM critical analysis blackout of any issue leading up to the Iraq invasion, Republicans are whining that the shoe is on the other foot.

Fuck these assholes.

From a purely business (aka CONservative) standpoint, Obama simply sells better. What's a network to do, but go with the money? Bear in mind, the networks' primary responsibilities are to shareholders, not the information-hungry public.

In the marketplace of media attention, McCain is a loser. On the night that Obama won his final state in the primaries, he spoke to a packed arena. McCain, surely knowing he would be on national television, spoke to 300 worn-out looking frightened white people. Team Obama effectively bitch-slapped Team McCain. McCain should have organized a huge event for that date, but instead, his campaign allowed itself to get painfully outclassed.

Obama makes his own media attention. An American presidential candidate speaking at the Brandenburg Gate makes headlines around the world for days on end, even if there's a question as to whether the event will actually take place. An American presidential candidate speaking to a few hundred older generation white people at a VFW hall in Middle America counts for shit in anything but the local papers.

Hey CONservatives - Democrats and Republicans are COMPETING for the media's attention. Is there something about competition that you don't understand? This time around, the Democrats are winning.

One other thing: What we are seeing now is the culmination of the CONservative ideologies of the last 25 years (at least). For those of us unfortunate enough not to be heirs to million-dollar fortunes, the end result has been an unmitigated disaster. I read recently that the powers on Wall Street are backing Obama 2/1 over McCain. If that isn't proof that the Republicans have done themselves in, I don't know what is.

I would have thought that the Republicans would have been better stewards of the country that they pretend to love so much, if only in their own self-interests. But, what should we expect of a party whose core idea about government is a 19th Century industrialist attitude that there simply should be no government, at least not for the wealthy?

...that the Iraq war itself was created for political gain. W couldn't have had the political capital of a war-time president without a war.

If prices are trending up, why would that be an incentive for the power companies to increase capacity that would ultimately cause prices to level off? I'd be inclined to think that they would leave things as they are and rake in the dough.

You get an A for effort. Unfortunately, little boy bucks probably won't understand your arguments. He thinks that if he calls everyone leftist radicals often enough it will follow that his points, such as they are, will be vindicated.