Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sharron Angle: In wake of Gulf spill, we need to "deregulate" Big Oil

Dems are gearing up to paint Sharron Angle, the ultra-conservative candidate who's now taking on Harry Reid, as another Rand Paul and possibly even further to his right.

And here's another data point: Angle said in a recent interview that the Gulf spill was an "accident" and opined that we need to further "deregulate" the oil industry in the wake of the disaster.

Here's the exchange, from a Nevada Newsmakers interview on May 26th, more than a month into the spill crisis:

QUESTION: You have been in support of onshore drilling in the United States as well as offshore drilling, are you rethinking that policy with what is going on in Louisiana?

ANGLE: No. I think that what happened in Louisiana was an accident. They're cleaning it up. We need to go forward and talk about prevention and not about whether we keep it out all together. We know that lot of the problems that have been caused for us with foreign policy and even with our own gas prices here domestically going up is our dependence upon foreign oil.

We have oil reserves and petroleum reserves that we should tap into. And that's a policy that we really need to look at as a nation. How do we deregulate enough to invite our industries to come back into the United States and quit outsourcing their business?

It's astonishing how quickly a picture of Angle is taking shape as more and more info comes to light. Sam Stein, for instance, finds an Angle quote from 2009 in which she seems to suggest that it's wrong for a married man and woman to hold jobs simultaneously.

And TPM reports that Angle embraced the patriot group "Oath Keepers," which warns members to resist some sort of nefarious plot that apparently exists -- who hatched it is unclear -- to create "giant concentration camps."

As I noted here yesterday, the Reid operation is gearing up to paint Angle as, well, a nutjob, as a cross between Rand Paul and Orly Taitz. There doesn't appear to be a shortage of material.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 9, 2010; 1:08 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: SEIU officials: Blanche Lincoln should forget about our support in general election
Next: Yes, labor lost yesterday. And?

Comments

The jokes, they write themselves.

Posted by: CalD | June 9, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Angle also wants to store nuclear waste in Yucca mountain... which was a winning issue in Nevada for Obama in 2008, and a big win for Reid last year when he got it shut down.

I mean seriously, teabaggers don't even care what state they are running in or who the voters are before they write their platform. I don't think that they really care about anyone else, since they seem to be under the illusion that they are everyone.

I'm looking forward to taking time to campaign after primary season, I don't think the GOP is going to have nearly the success the MSM wants them to have. Not only are there serious fundraising issues, but they candidates themselves are looking more and more extreme with each and every week.

Posted by: PaulW99 | June 9, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

won't be hard to argue that it was deregulation that got us this mess. Not sure why she thinks deregulation can fix it???

Harry may have lucked out...

Posted by: soapm | June 9, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Yes they do write themselves:

Sharron Obtuse Angle(R) For US Senator From Nevada.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Alcohol For None, Guns For All"

Sharron Obtuse Angle

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Um....

HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

But no wonder Palin picked her. She's probably the only candidate who Palin understands:

"We know that lot of the problems that have been caused for us with foreign policy and even with our own gas prices here domestically going up is our dependence upon foreign oil."

In what universe does that sentence make grammatical sense?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Sharron Obtuse Angle might wish to combine two of her policy objectives.

Why not allow a completely deregulated British Petroleum, to take care of storing spent nuclear fuel rods. After all, they have an excellent safety record. They haven't had a new toxic spill, in the past week.

That is right up there, with the safety record of Montgomery Burns' Springfield Nuclear Plant.

Excellent!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile,

This is starting to look very similar to what happened to the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

"KABUL, Afghanistan – Insurgents shot down a NATO helicopter and killed four American troops in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday, the military said, in the latest bloodshed ahead of a major operation in the militants' heartland.

The violence came as Afghanistan's ousted intelligence chief warned in an interview with The Associated Press that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's strategy of seeking reconciliation with the Taliban was dangerously flawed.

The deaths, and that of a British soldier killed by an improvised bomb in a separate attack Wednesday, take NATO's toll to 29 deaths in nine days, according to an AP count. The United States, whose some 94,000 troops vastly outnumber the rest of the allies' contributions in Afghanistan, has lost 17 service members since Sunday."

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Interesting tidbits from Geraghty:

"Last night, Sharron Angle won 70,420 votes. Harry Reid won 87,374. That’s a smaller margin than I would have expected ... Another factor that’s a bit surprising: 25 percent of Nevada Democrats who showed up wanted a Senate nominee that wasn’t Harry Reid."

The RCP poll average also puts Angle ahead.

But really, this should be easy for Reid, notwithstanding his state's extremely high unemployment rate and the monumental hit they took with the housing crash.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Nice try SBJ.

Harry had no challenger, so there was no reason to push for a large turnout.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Obtuse Angle would like to bring back prohibition.

Is the consumption of alcoholic beverages forbidden, in L. Ron Hubbard's Science Fiction, practical joke?

Will the Conservative Coors Beer Owner, donate heavily to her campaign?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to watch a debate between Reid and Angle. Reid would make her look like the know-nothing that she is.

Makes me wonder, is Rand Paul doing a debate? It's probably the only way to get him out of Fox News' safety net and make him answer some actual questions.

Posted by: Beeliever | June 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

SBJ, does RCP weight for the age of the poll? I ask because its an important consideration. 538 does it, and I believe Pollster does too (both generally much more credible than RCP in most cases), but for example, the TPM polltracker does not, thereby making their averages absurdly meaningless.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"How do we deregulate enough to invite our industries to come back into the United States and quit outsourcing their business?"

I don't even know WTH that means. Is she saying that our oil companies are outsourcing their business? Is she saying that outsourcing caused the spill? This makes no sense.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Greg, this is OT, but I only have a minute and one quick question. Any idea who Americans for Job Security (remember them) will be backing in the AR general election?

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Harry had no challenger, so there was no reason to push for a large turnout."

Back in reality-land, Harry had three challengers. Even "None of these candidates" won 11%

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

What Grizzly Palin is calling for ;

Drill Baby Drill, every where in the USA, and she is claiming that will meet all our oil demands, and we will have no need to import any foreign oil.

That is actually what Grizzly Palin is claiming, God save us all.

Of course; the stubborn fact that there is not anywhere that amount of oil still in the ground, in the USA, makes no difference to Grizzly Palin.

Facts are putty like, in Sarah's mind, and can be shaped to fit what every Quitter wants them to look like.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

John Cole is right:

"

I simply refuse to see how it was a bad decision to support Halter. Lincoln is just a horrible candidate who is most likely going to lose in November anyway, was notoriously and openly hostile to just about everything important to the Democratic base, and the netroots were able to find a good solid candidate to attempt to primary her. If ever there was a case to primary someone, this was it- there was quite literally nothing to lose and everything to gain.

And Halter came very, very close to beating her. I just fail to see why anyone should be embarrassed, or feel foolish or demoralized. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you always lose if you never try. Rather than mocking the attempt or getting some schadenfreude because people you don’t like on the internet feel bad today, you should get off your ass and make sure this sort of action, primarying bad politicians, becomes more rather than less common."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/09/im-with-mistermix/

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Like I said before, Harry had no challenger that would warrant a turn out the vote, on his part.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Reid is going to have a field day with this nincompoop.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 9, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Palin needs friends who look dumber than she is. Guess she found one who fills the bill.

Posted by: Howdeb | June 9, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

@fetch the holy hand grenade: "SBJ, does RCP weight for the age of the poll?"

I've no idea (average of Mason Dixon, Rass and Research 2000). And this far out I wouldn't trust too much in polls. Angle is a far far far right candidate and she has no money and no staff.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Halter had every right to compete in the Primary. He had already established himself on a state wide basis.

After he won his way into a runoff, was he supposed to not try and win it?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

She spells her name with 2 r's. That tell us a lot.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 9, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Lots of liberal DC heads exploding today as expected. Funny to watch.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | June 9, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

sbj, I didn't expect you to have an answer (not that that is a problem though), I was simply pointing out that poll averages have a lot to be considered in them (which is why Nate Silver's methods are so elegant and accurate).

But yes, given the point in the race, the fact that all poll predate the primary, as well as other factors, what numbers we do have right now would mean a lick right now anyway. I eagerly await the first wave of post-primary polling (albeit with a grain of salt following that laughable Kentucky poll Ras coughed up in less than a day).

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"You should get off your ass and make sure this sort of action, primarying bad politicians, becomes more rather than less common."

Seems rather odd that some of the same folks pushing this line see no problem with the admin offering jobs to make primaries LESS competitive...

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Wow that was rife with grammar mistakes. I complained about wanting preview and then don't use it. Shame on me

...all pollS predate...

..,have right now wouldN'T mean...

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse


SBJ,

And how do you feel about that?

I do not recall your side getting upset about a few teabaggers blocking the incumbent Republican Utah senator from running for renomination.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, I agree with Angle about there being sources of energy in this country that we need to tap into, but we'd prolly disagree on which and to what extent...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | June 9, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Let me see: deregulate companies so they will come back into the U.S. and, in the case of oil, drill off the coast, right Sharron?

You said there should be "prevention" of more spills, correct? Just how do you suppose that will be accomplished other than by "regulation"?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | June 9, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Yes, if we could just capture all the hot gas coming out of Rush Limbaugh, and all those brain farts being emitted by TeaBaggers, we would become energy independent overnight.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

One nutjob running against another. Love it.

Posted by: charlesbakerharris | June 9, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Again, you take someone out of context. Her comments about deregulation were in the general sense, not specifically about big oil. To write that she specifically wants to "deregulate big oil" is simply a lie.

But it appears she may in fact have some positions that are out of the mainstream, at least based on past statements. Because of Reid's unpopularity this is actually a competitive race.

Posted by: RambleOn | June 9, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@liam: "I do not recall your side getting upset about a few teabaggers blocking the incumbent Republican Utah senator from running for renomination."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you comparing a union spending $10 million to a very strange nominating process in Utah that by odd design permitted a fringe group to knock off a reliable incumbent? (BTW, if you do not recall "my side" getting upset then you don't pay much attention.)

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

You lefties never cease to amaze me with the lack of analytical depth. Did you consider for a second why BP was drilling 5000' below sea level? Did you think it was their first choice? Or was it an unintended consequence of the heavy-handed REGULATION of the industry in DC? Now, I know I have to hold hands a bit here: oil exploration has been pushed out so far to sea because of the restrictive rules pushed by the enviro-statists (read democratic legislators) created ny REGULATING off-shore drilling. The same BP you loathe has had one 6,400 barrel accident in Prudome Bay AK in 30 years--would you prefer that outcome to the incredible difficulty in fixing a leak a mile below sea level? Do ya think if we opened up drilling in the ANWR, we might have LESS spills at sea? For a bunch so behind REGULATION, perhaps you might want to take a look at what politically-driven regulation has done on a net-basis.

And any idiot who thinks there is a limited amount of oil in the ground--you just don't understand logic, do you? Is it possible to prove a negative? So, kinda like your global warming myth, you just push off the end point where we might actually be able to analyze your theory to whatever far point into the future--and continue to tug on the emotional purse strings of your base to continue the charade....

Posted by: DagnyTaggert1 | June 9, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

One can only wonder what the motivation is for such a bizarre set of positions. Defending Big Oil against people who've lost their livelihood to the environmental catastrophe they've caused, wanting to turn one's state into a nuclear waste dump, wanting to cancel peoples' retirement, wanting to force some wacko religion on state prisoners. Is there a common thread here? Why do people like this think they have something to offer?

Posted by: DaveHarris | June 9, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

We could save thousands of lives each year by forbidding at-grade intersections on all of our roads. Replacing the at-grade intersections with overpasses would be prohibitively expensive and many roads would need to be closed. We don't implement this type of regulation because we weigh cost vs benefit, and substitute bearable regulation, stop signs, for unbearable regulation requiring overpasses.

I believe that is what Sharron Angle is saying--weigh the cost of big oil regulation with the benefit; and don't base the dicision on a once in a lifetime accident that may have been preventable with appropriate oversight.

Posted by: amazd | June 9, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

We could save thousands of lives each year by forbidding at-grade intersections on all of our roads. Replacing the at-grade intersections with overpasses would be prohibitively expensive and many roads would need to be closed. We don't implement this type of regulation because we weigh cost vs benefit, and substitute bearable regulation, stop signs, for unbearable regulation requiring overpasses.

I believe that is what Sharron Angle is saying--weigh the cost of big oil regulation with the benefit; and don't base the dicision on a once in a lifetime accident that may have been preventable with appropriate oversight.

Posted by: amazd | June 9, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"DagnyTaggert" says it all: free markets solve everything.

Oil companies are over-regulated?

You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

@DagnyTaggert1 - Presumably, because there was *OIL* there. Are you naive enough to think that deep water drilling is unique to the Caribbean? If so, go read a little.

Jake in 3D

Posted by: JakeD3 | June 9, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

deregulating isn't the same debate as whether to drill in ANWR or closer to shore (the environmentalists and their sympathetic congressmen may want to rethink that now, perhaps?).

Angle's statement about the leak being an accident not indicating a need for more regulation is the dumb one. It may have been, but she can't know that. It could just as easily (and likely much more easily) have been the result of the shortcuts and regulatory infractions we are starting to hear about, that scared one rig worker into putting his affairs in order on his last visit and telling his wife that BP was cutting corners, or the failure to keep the BOP in top shape, or the decision to change the mix in the pumping prematurely. stuff like that.

Rand Paul had the same "accident" response to the mine in KY. couldn't have been the hundreds of violations of methane gas management regulations that he thinks a free market would make unnecessary to begin with. like without regulation mines would be more likely to try to be safe. any first year business or economics student can recite the myriad flaws in this libertarian garbage. it doesn't even work in theory, let alone reality.

Posted by: JoeT1 | June 9, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

amazd wrote....
I believe that is what Sharron Angle is saying--weigh the cost of big oil regulation with the benefit; and don't base the dicision on a once in a lifetime accident that may have been preventable with appropriate oversight.

--------------------------
The problem is that if you look at the drilling industry across the globe, these kinds of accidents happen pretty regularly. Nigeria, a favorite among the drilling companies because they have little oversight, has spills like this every year.

Posted by: RGee1 | June 9, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, just goes to show, Republicans still think clean water and clean air is a joke.

Most humans cant' live without water or air, but it still makes no difference to wacko Republicans that the air and water we need to sustain life itself should be clean air and clean water.

Won't be long before the planet is 3/4 oil, instead of 3/4 water.

Posted by: lindalovejones | June 9, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

@DagnyTaggert1: Do ya think if we opened up drilling in the ANWR, we might have LESS spills at sea?

No, offshore drilling would continue with or without ANWR.

"And any idiot who thinks there is a limited amount of oil in the ground--you just don't understand logic, do you?"

Arguing against the fact that there is a finite amount of oil that can be exploited defies logic. Have you heard of peak oil? We are at stage 3 of peak oil, where the only large deposits left are either technologically (see gulf oil spill), environmentally (see tar sands, shale oil with their use of water) or financially challenging (see all of the above). To keep up with world demand in the future we need to find a Saudi Arabia sized untapped oil deposit about every 6 months. We find one about every 5 years. Do the math...

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

And yet Deregulate Angle, would like to bring back Prohibition!

I am waiting for her to announce that she is going to fly to Loch Ness, to offer the position of Prohibition Czar, to Elliot.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Taggers+"global warming myth"= next?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | June 9, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Obtuse Angle is the gift that keeps on giving.

From TPM.


"The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in April 1999 that the state assembly, of which Angle was a member, voted 26-16 for a bill that required fluoridation in two counties including the cities of Reno and Las Vegas. Angle was a strong opponent of the measure. The paper reported (via Nexis):

Before the vote, Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno, sought to postpone the vote so she could add an amendment to block fluoridation in Washoe County. The Washoe County Commission in 1992 rejected fluoridation, and Angle said the Legislature should not approve fluoridation in her county without a vote of its people.

While another member of the Assembly suggested opponents of the measure were worried about the financial implications of fluoridation, the Review-Journal reported: "Angle said she simply does not like fluoride." Angle added she believed most fluoride used in water supplies could contain "lead, arsenic, [or] mercury.""

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

amazd: Don't base the dicision on a once in a lifetime accident

I suppose that is true if you live less than 35 years. See the Ixtoc I oil spill for the last catastrophic oil spill in the gulf. The toxic environmentally damaging effects of that spill continued for decades from a spill in 1979.

see this link for more once in a lifetime events...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Over Regulated, My Arse!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/08/v-print/95535/feds-knew-of-gulf-spill-risks.html


"Feds knew of Gulf spill risks in 2000, document shows
Shashank Bengali | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 09, 2010 01:12:42 PM

WASHINGTON — A decade ago, U.S. government regulators warned that a major deepwater oil spill could start with a fire on a drilling rig, prove hard to stop and cause extensive damage to fish eggs and wetlands because there were few good ways to capture oil underwater.

The disaster scenario — contained in a May 2000 offshore drilling plan for the Shell oil company that McClatchy has obtained — is now a grim reality in the Gulf of Mexico. Less predictably, perhaps, the author of the document was the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, the regulatory agency that's come under withering criticism in the wake of the BP spill for being too cozy with industries it was supposed to be regulating.

The 2000 warning, however, indicates that some federal regulators were well aware of the potential hazards of deepwater oil production in its early years, experts and former MMS officials told McClatchy.

Yet over the past decade, the risks faded into the background as America thirsted for new oil sources, the energy industry mastered new drilling technologies and the number of deepwater wells in the Gulf swelled into the thousands. Then-President George W. Bush ushered in the new era with an executive order on May 18, 2001, that pushed his new administration to speed up the search for oil.

"I think it was certainly overwhelmed by the excitement of all the oil and gas that was starting to show up in the seismic studies and the technical excitement of how to drill these reservoirs," said Rick Steiner, a veteran environmental scientist who reviewed the document for McClatchy. "I think that had a way of subduing the real concern about the risk of these things."

The Shell plan, which Greenwire, an environmental news service, first reported last week, described a worst-case scenario for a deepwater blowout that in several instances reads like a preview of what's happened since BP's Deepwater Horizon rig began spewing crude into the Gulf seven weeks ago."

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

What a surprise that a commenter who chose an Ayn Rand character as a handle would wade in with condescending, uniniformed, blue-sky Libertarian boilerplate.

I'm scandalized.

Posted by: Cecil5 | June 9, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

Shorter Teabagger's theme:

Regulate people. Deregulate business.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Amazing all the negative stuff posted here by you IDIOT LIBTARDS who don't even live in Nevada. None of you jerks knows squat about the Silver State. Don't be surprised if Angle handily beats that a**wipe Harry Reid in the November elections. Harry hasn't done squat for this state amd just about everyone knows it too. Outside of a bunch of union scumbags in Las Vegas and a small group of LIB IDIOTS also in Las Vegas, noone supports Reid in Nevada. The state has an almost equal number of Democrat and Republican voters; and in the just past primary election Republicans heavily outvoted Democrats. It will be the same in November. A**hole Harry should start clearing out his desk, because he will be voted out. Numbers don't lie!

Posted by: avideo99 | June 9, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

We could save thousands of lives each year by forbidding at-grade intersections on all of our roads. Replacing the at-grade intersections with overpasses would be prohibitively expensive and many roads would need to be closed. We don't implement this type of regulation because we weigh cost vs benefit, and substitute bearable regulation, stop signs, for unbearable regulation requiring overpasses.

I believe that is what Sharron Angle is saying--weigh the cost of big oil regulation with the benefit; and don't base the dicision on a once in a lifetime accident that may have been preventable with appropriate oversight.
_______________________
that's precisely what she was NOT saying. suggesting that existing regulation should have been sufficient if enforced by vigilant regulators and arguing for prudence against overreaction would have sounded reasonable indeed. she was taking the Rand Paul/Ayn Rand libertarian less regulation tack.

Posted by: JoeT1 | June 9, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Freedom for the corporations and rules for the humans.

Sounds like a surefire winner to me. Corporations can vote now, or is that the NEXT ruling of this Activist Conservative Supreme Court?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

@DagnyTaggert1:
"And any idiot who thinks there is a limited amount of oil in the ground--you just don't understand logic, do you?"

Umm Danny, your statement has no logic. I am a geologist. Petroleum is from the remains of large concentrations of marine algae, cooked at just the right temperature and pressure for the right amount of time. To be recoverable it has to migrate from the source rock and be trapped in a permeable reservoir.
Guess what? These conditions are rarely met. Add in the fact that there have been limited times in Earth's history when there was significant enough accumulation of algal remains to begin with to start the process, you wind up with finite amount of the stuff that you can recover.
We've already found the easy stuff and all the really big fields (which are easy to find). This includes just offshore and in the coastal areas of the gulf btw, no regulations have stopped drilling there. Even presuming there was oil beneath ANWR, it would be drop in the bucket with regards to our consumption and they would STILL want to drill deep offshore.

The only thing illogical here is your magical belief that there is infinite supply of oil left to be found easily and cheaply.

Posted by: ACD-pa | June 9, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Angle is right - we must attract more buisinesses and prevent them from continuing to move overseas and that would include corporate tax reductions and more de-regulation. Anyone that really thinks more goverment regulation would have prevented this spill is truly an idiot. Just watching the government's response under Obama to the oil spill shows how ineffective the Federal Government is. The leftist socialist morons want to move to more government control, yet it was the oil company from a Euro-socialist nation that caused the spill.....the de-regualted American companies did not....once again the Democrats look the fool.

Angle is right and will win rather easily - NOONE in Nevada wants Reid back.

Posted by: Realist20 | June 10, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

The Gulf Catastrophe could have been avoided if the US were growing algae. Algae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes CO2. No explosions, no fires, no deaths and no environmental problems. What's wrong with that???

Algae has been researched in US universities for over 35 years. It's time to move it out of the lab and go into commercial-scale production. Algaepreneurs are starting to build commercial-scale plants throughout the US using all off-the-shelf existing technologies. More algae production plants are coming online. Algae is one solution to get the US off of foreign oil and create new jobs right here in the US. The algae industry is being built today by Americans who all want to get off foreign oil.

Posted by: fatalgae | June 10, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

For all those who say transporting and storing Nuclear Waste is safe...I say, sure it is; it's just as safe as you said deep underwater oil drilling was going to be by BP in the Gulf....How did that work out for you....Only with a Nuclear Waste Disaster it will be RADIATION spread all over that lasts thousands of years instead of mere biological oil waste that lasts for decades. And if it is sooooo safe and a boon to the State that accepts it, WHY isn't every other State that already has temporary storage at a Nuclear Power Plant fighting to get the Permanent Nuclear Storage Dump for their citizens, communities and economy, instead of trying to give their Nuclear Suppository to Nevada???? NUCLEAR WASTE IN NEVADA--NO THANKS!

Posted by: benighse | June 10, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Wow, what a nutjob Angle is. She had better stay safe on Fox Lies. What if the public finds out she's crazy?

Posted by: MarkFromOhio | June 15, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Suddenly this doesn't look like the shoe-in for the Republicans that was advertised not too long ago.

Posted by: jeffwacker | June 15, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

How much is Reid paying you and WaPo?

Let's look at the entire quote you butchered.

"We have oil reserves and petroleum reserves that we should tap into. And that's a policy that we really need to look at as a nation. How do we deregulate enough to invite our industries to come back into the United States and quit outsourcing their business? We need it here. And especially in this climate, and we also need to talk about taxation as well, you know, the corporate tax rate. Why is Ireland at 12.5%, here we're at 25-35%. We need to be competitive, and competitive in all markets."

Completely different statement. Harry thanks you for carrying his water.

Posted by: jcrue | June 16, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

hey mark from ohio how about you worry about your own f'd up state?

Posted by: jcrue | June 16, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company