The Audacity of Hypocrisy

Obama is finally taking (just) a little heat on his support of Brazilian oil.  The Washington Post has an editorial today pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama's position, Ed Morrissey has a post at Hot Air, and Steven Hayward at NRO comments as well.

Obama's comments in Brazil last week were puzzling at best:

By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.

The hypocrisy abounds.

Consider this from WaPo:

Brazil already produces vast quantities of a fuel — ethanol — that the U.S. government, under a policy long supported by presidents and farm-state members of Congress from both parties, has promoted as a green alternative to gasoline. But the United States, protecting its own heavily subsidized ethanol industry by means of a 2.5 percent tariff and a 54-cent-per-gallon duty, prevents Americans from importing all but trivial amounts of the stuff from Brazil.

We're willing to import oil from Brazil, but not ethanol; our own ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.  Ed Morrissey thinks Obama should explain why we're willing to import oil but not ethanol:

"Not only does Barack Obama need to explain his enthusiasm for drilling and oil consumption apparently everywhere but in the US, he also needs to explain why the US wants to import oil from Brazil, but not ethanol."

While lauding the Washington Post editorial for pointing out Obama's hypocrisy's, Morrissey also points out:

Most of the rest of the media ignored them, just as they ignored the fact that Obama was cheerleading for Brazilian oil production at the same time he had launched a war against Libya.  Hardly anyone has commented on the connection between those two actions, but Obama has to have his eye open for ways to increase supply and lower fuel prices in case Libya’s production stays off line for a long time, which looks like a pretty good bet.  Otherwise, oil prices will skyrocket and the American economy will stall further into stagnation, which will mean a short political career for Obama.

The lamestream media is alive and well.  The criticism in the major media for Obama's Brazilian comments was nowhere to be found.  

Blood for Oil.  Isn't that what they said about Bush?


Even worse, it seems to me, is that as badly as America needs jobs, why is Obama so willing to shut down our own exploration industry and send these jobs to Brazil?  Since the moratorium only five new permits have been issued.  Senator David Vitter calls Obama's position ridiculous:

“We have abundant energy resources off Louisiana’s coast, but this administration has virtually shut down our offshore industry and instead is using Americans’ tax dollars to support drilling off the coast of Brazil,” said Vitter. “It’s ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg them to produce more oil. We need to get serious about developing our resources here at home and working towards lower gas prices and long-term energy independence.”

It's true, as WaPo and Morrissey say that this position abounds in hypocrisy but it's also true that it is further proof that there are children in the White House where adults need to be.   Team Obama says what sounds good at the time then backtracks later.  He'll have to retreat from this in some way or else open up the permit process and get Gulf drilling once again. 

(AP Photo)