I had been thinking this before. How we're told by many Democrats that oil is bad, fossil fuels are bad for us. Then suddenly we're told that Obama has been drilling more than anybody ever or something. Wait, which is it? Are we drilling or do we think oil is bad? It gets to the point where you have to look the Obama Supporter in the eyes and ask them: "Do you believe what he just said?"
from Victor Davis Hanson http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301119/two-three-many-obamas-victor-davis-hanson May 29, 2012
I recall that once upon a time Obama derided fossil fuels, bragging that "millions of new green jobs" would accrue from subsidizing wind and solar power and "bankrupting" coal companies, as energy prices would accordingly "skyrocket." But then once upon another time, Obama bragged that on his watch we are pumping more oil than ever before, apparently because private firms ignored his pleas and drilled despite his efforts to shut down leasing on public lands. So we are to credit Obama for stopping oil leasing on public lands, which forced greater production on private lands, while being impressed that he lost billions subsidizing doomed solar and wind companies? When the government fails to promote new energy, that constitutes success because those outside the government then must do more? Do the various Obamas represent both the good but failed intention and the bad successful one?