If there was a choice of drilling for more oil in Alask or the Gulf of Mexico vs.?

Placing windmills infront of his Cape Cod property....


How do you think Ted Kennedy would vote on it?If there was a choice of drilling for more oil in Alask or the Gulf of Mexico vs.?
He'd vote for more chowdaIf there was a choice of drilling for more oil in Alask or the Gulf of Mexico vs.?
Why are you asking that about Ted Kennedy? Why don't you ask that about the Republicans who held the House, Senate and White House from 2000-2006 and did nothing about exploration, drilling or new refineries?





And Texas is Republican and didn't increase any exploration or refineries under the great George Bush or since. So is many of the central states with gas/oil underground - Oklahoma, Kansas, etc. You would like to blame the energy problems on the Democrats when it's Republicans who have failed to act over the last 8 years.





Yep - he has been against the windmills which is stupid on his part but try as you may - Ted Kennedy isn't the reason their isn't increased drilling, exploration or refineries.





';AND.... How many democratic congresses have refused to build refineries, drilling, and atomic power plants??? ALL OF THEM!'; And what does this have to do with the Republicans failure to act over the last 8 years?
The Alaska oil-drilling plan won't work -- there's just not enough oil there. Same with Gulf of Mexico. It would permanantly pollute the environment and provide less than 6 months of oil supply.





I'd go with the windmills, and I think Ted Kennedy would too.
He would vote against both and leave the average hard working Amercan to pay the resulting high energy costs.