Why many are not in favor, it seems, is because the cost of getting the oil out will not be worth the amount that seems to be available. Couple this questionable cost/benefit economic analysis with "environmental concerns" (whatever those are, specifically, I'm not sure) and you have a recipe for political DOA.
As to the answer for reattaching the limb: there, of course, is not one magic cure-all answer. But the strategic thrust of developing energy independence must be in developing new energy sources that could eventually replace oil. Of course, even if one is developed overnight, that's not going to change things on the short term. But the reality is is that we are up sh-- creek without a paddle in the short term when it comes to oil prices. Nothing much is going to change that, other than an unexpected and sudden drastic reduction in demand.