I guess I'll get straight to the point here. I believe Bush's plan to drill in the Coastal Plain of the ANWR is insane. It's environmentally and economically unsound and it will do more damage than good.

But I want to know what Republicans think about this domestic policy. We all know that the libs will call Bush an "oil baron" and stuff like that, but I want to know what most of you GOP'ers think about this plan.

Do you, as a Republican, support the ANWR drilling agenda?

Im fully an supporter for drilling oil in alaska we are gonna only take 1.9 million acres thats all and the ANWR have 19 million acres. Which I believe will never harm any animals whats so ever. What do you think we should do. Also if an accident did occur we could take care of it instantly its such a great deal I would think it would be lot cheaper than importing from saudi arabia for the next 30 years and the gas prices would be down in the summer. Drilling Oil in ANWR would be the best thing possible for us. It holds about 16 billion barrels of oil and I think that would last us for a very long time.

What I read was about 2,000 acres would be drilled on, not 1.9 million.
I am for it, even if it will supply only 5% of our needs. It means we spend less in the middle east, and the Saudi princes have will have to cut back on their extravagant life style.
But, I am also for conservation of energy first. Perhaps permission to drill there could be tied to conservation measures encouraged and funded in the lower 48?

I am in favor of drilling in ANWR. I believe in conservatioon and alternative sources of energy, however, we cannot switch to something like alternative fuels just over night. We need to do something to remove us from this Middle East dependence. We need something so that our foreign policy is not held hostage by our need for oil, so while we continue developing the alternative sources of energy, I thing drilling in ANWR is the right thing to do

EXACTLY!!! I often wonder how many of those opposed to such drilling have ever even site a well-site. It's a very small plot of land, which, if oil is struck, only has a small pump on it afterwards. The environmental impact of this is miniscule. Ditto for pipelines, although they do have a larger geographic impact. Therefore, the current opposition tends to center on 'what-if' scenarios. These can be designed out by the system, in all practical sense (have their been any major spills out of the North Slope Pipeline?). I think you could make a very good argument that things we do elsewhere probably have a larger impact on the ecology there than the pipeline would (consider global warming, smog, etc). So, when you weigh the very tangible pros against the realistic cons....the decision seems pretty obvious to me. Besides, I think the question needs to be turned around...rather than 'Are you for drilling in the ANWR?', the question should be 'Are you for continued reliance on foreign sources of oil?'

I am absolutely for it. As important as the environment is, any environmental harm here is outweighed by the necessity for us to get off our dependance on Middle East oil.

Drill like there is no tomorrow. There are enough far left "environmentalist" to act as watchdogs and prevent an ecological disaster.

Get started yesterday. That's what I think.

Yes. ANWR is not the lush forest deceptively shown on CNN. It is a desert waste land! Complaining about drilling in ANWR is like complaining about drilling for oil in the middle of Nevada!

The environment is important, however, and should always be taken into consideration. But if man can send a rocket to the moon, man can install a pipeline in the tundra without significant environmental impact.

I agree with sw2. Alternative fuels like hydrogen powered vehicles are promising. Research should be and is ongoing in this area. But until better alternatives are in place, it is still oil, coal, and nuclear energies which power up the nations of the world, including ours.

When the Alaskan Pipeline was being put in, the cry was long and loud on how it was going to ruin the land, interrupt the flow of animals, etc. etc. None of it happened. You can go back and look into all of the drilling sites in Alaska and then pick a few in the US. THey are drilling now under Los Angeles. They are drilling and pumping oil in Wyoming. The drilling process isn't like it was with destruction of the land - it's much less intrusive because of methods to find out if t here really IS oil in one area. The down hole electric pumps are very small and take up less land than wind generators - unless you know what you are looking for, it's hard to find the well sites.

Hydrogen cars have already been developed - Ford has a bunch ready to go. The US is in the process of building hydrogen plants NOW with more on the drawing board. We are talking a few years before they are available. But in the meantime, we need oil. And oil is used in everything you can think of - plastics, cosmetics, medicine, etc . the list goes on forever. The oil we use for gasoline and diesel is SMALL compared to what we use for everything else.

When we drill in the USA, then we are also producing AMERICAN jobs. Some of the best paying jobs are in the oil industry. We might as well use our own oil and keep the money to spend here.

We'll continue to buy foriegn oil because it's cheaper - and better to deplete their stocks than ours, but we do need to have those supplies available and ready. Once a well is drilled, you don't have to pump it dry - we just need to be prepared and not held hostage over oil.