The comment was:
There is no hypocrisy. Bush pursued policies that drove up oil prices and drove up gas prices. Obama has done just the opposite. Employment in oil and gas exploration is at a 20 year high under Obama.The comment linked the accompanying graph as evidence.
Well of course everybody knows that "employment in oil and gas exploration" means that we're actually finding it and being allowed to drill for it ... right? FAIL #1
And if higher "employment in oil and gas exploration" is an indicator of energy policy that keeps supply high and prices low, then we can only deduce from the chart the commenter linked that horrible policy was pursued under Clinton, as it did all of its actual falling under the Clinton administration, then held steady during GW Bush's first term and began to rise sharply during his second term (you know, when all of the same people who blamed Bush for high gas prices were busy blaming him) -- and "employment in oil and gas exploration" first dropped sharply right after Obama took office, but in the last two years has increased again at about the same trajectory it was on before Obama took office. FAIL #2
FAIL #1 is much bigger, though, because looking for gas and oil is not the same as actually producing it. Remember the instructive joke:
Q: Three guys are sitting on a bridge. Two say they will jump off. How many are left?Government doesn't do the exploring, and government doesn't do the drilling. They can allow exploring but not drilling - which is what pretty much what the administration has been doing.
A: Three. Because saying and doing are two different things.
A better explanation of what you see on the chart is that falling oil prices made oil less profitable, so less exploration was done over time. When oil prices started going up ... mostly due to increased world demand, companies (not Bush or Obama) started looking for more of it. And they have to look extra hard because of all the places they are not allowed to actually, you know, drill for it.
I mean ... duh, people!