Ah, the search for energy that doesn't come from a Red Bull. . . . When President Bush broached the subject of nixing the ban on offshore drilling this week, the idea fueled a whole gusher of tension. Here's where it stands today:
President Bush called out Democrats for parking in the way of energy relief (via drilling) in his radio address this morning. Bush said:
One major deposit in the Rocky Mountain West alone would equal current annual oil imports for more than 100 years. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that Bush's claims of stonewalling are crude and baseless — if the president wants drilling, he doesn't even need Congress. To see why,
What the president is doing is unfair to the American people to indicate, 'We will let Congress do something about it.' He has the authority to do it himself. This is typical Bush White House politics. It's Orwellian. He has the power, with the signing of a pen, to release more options for offshore drilling — he has the power to do this.
Is it an energetic fight between Republicans and Democrats? For his part, John McCain announced a goal of creating 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 this week, and the Times pointed out McCain's willingness to "break completely" from previous energy policies. To enhance his planet-saving cred, McCain released a powerfully pro-earth ad this week.
Is McCain the energetic answer to calls for, "Reform. Prosperity. Peace?" Who's on the right side of this oil-fueled debate?