The GOP are ignorant hypocrites for blaming gas prices on Obama

Of what are Republicans claimed ignorant? … Of what hypocritical? "Ignorant hypocrite" is no more than a curse leveled at anyone disagreeing with a fondly held position. Disagreement is neither ignorant or hypocritical, even if one disagrees strongly. I'm surprised that anyone would try to defend it as being literally correct, but it's fair for Pro try. It is then fair for me to ask "What is it of which Republicans are ignorant?" and “What is the evidence that such ignorance characterizes Republicans?” Pro also has to prove hypocrisy. So I ask, "What is it Republicans believe, but deny believing, that makes them hypocrites?" and “What is the evidence that particular hypocrisy characterizes Republicans. Pro refuses to answer any of these questions directly. Usually claimed generalizations are supported by data from polls, but Pro has produced none of that. Instead Pro asks me to read a list of assorted links, try to figure out what he means by “ignorant” and “hypocrisy,” and that then I should try to figure out what his argument is. Republicans leadership has consistently blamed oil prices on development prohibitionsAt the start of the debate Pro said, "It is hypocritical for Republicans to blame rising gas prices on Obama and not give him some credit when they go down." For that to be hypocrisy, Pro would have to show that Republicans believe that nothing effects oil prices but the policies set by whoever is the President. No one believes that. Everyone knows that prices are affected by fears of supply interruption (where by Iranian blockade or Nigerian rebels), by changes in world demand due to prosperity in China and recession in Europe and America, the value of the dollar, the price of drilling equipment and supplies, and a host of other factors. The only things discussed are policies that affect prices. It isn't that the President always gets blame or credit no matter what the reasons. Republicans have consistently blamed government obstacles to U.S. resource development as a significant cause of higher oil prices. Pro cites a Republican Congressman during the Bush Administration blaming the effects of blocked ANWR development initiated by Clinton. There is no hypocrisy in that, that's consistently blaming restrictions on development. It also shows that Republicans do not believe that oil prices are solely due to the policies of whoever is the current President.During the Bush Administration, Newt Gingrich wrote a book about oil prices, attributing high prices on lack of development, and uniformly condemning any policy that blocked development. Gingrich said, citing Chairman of the Board of Economic Advisers Martin Feldstein, “... if we increase the amount of oil we will have in the future –which would happen if Congress limited the moratorium on off shore and oil shale drilling and made onshore drilling easier-- oil's future value will diminish, and this lowers prices today.” [p. 154] One may not agree with that theory, but it has been maintained with consistency. As long as you say what you believe, there is no hypocrisy. Bush was criticized by drilling advocates for not doing enough, “President Bush’s response to $4/gallon gasoline was to lift presidential and Congressional moratoriums on expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, a move that many critics say came too late.” http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com... Pro says, “There are no Republicans who had blamed high gas prices on Bush prior to 2008 while he was in office unless the con can prove otherwise.” Republicans place blame for failure to try to develop oil resources. Bush moved consistently to try to increase drilling, and was blocked by Democrats. So there is no reason for them to blame Bush. Pro supposes that Republicans were somehow obliged to find some other reason to blame Bush for high oil prices. even if Bush was advocating what they wanted. That's ridiculous. Pro has the burden of proof, not me. He must provide evidence that Republicans really believe something other than what they say, which is that increased U.S. production will lower oil prices. Democrats and support drilling Pro seems to assume that anyone critical of President Obama's anti-oil policies is a Republican. That assumption is implied in citing all critics as if they were Republicans. However, it's 70% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats that are unhappy with the drilling obstacles: “Although support for increased drilling in U.S. waters is highest among Republicans, a majority of Democrats also favor it," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fifty-six percent of Democrats favor more offshore drilling, compared to 70 percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... I gave a list of other categories of proponents of oil resource development. I challenged Pro to distinguish Republicans from non-Republicans in his collection of links, and to show that the Republicans didn't believe what they said. Pro responded with another batch of links without identifying who is supposed to have been ignorant or hypocritical about what. I'm not going to try to fabricate Pro's case. For each link, Pro should cite the Republican, say what they are ignorant of, say what they really believe that they are falsifying, and say why it's proved. Pro claims hypocrisy that Republicans don't attribute other causes Pro argues that any Republican criticizing President Obama's anti-oil policies are obliged to give a full account of every factor that influences oil prices, and if Republicans do not do that, it's hypocrisy. No politician is ever obliged to present the opposition case. I've never heard President Obama argue the case for increased drilling as a factor in oil prices. So is President Obama a hypocrite too? I don't think so. Politicians operate in a debate context, meaning that they know that the other side is there making their case. Each side gets a share of the national attention, and it makes perfect sense to spend one's time on one's own case. The other side gets to make theirs. Pro argues that Republicans fail to support Democratic policies that would bring oil prices down. Actually, it all depends. Some farm state Republicans have supported the $5.50 per gallon ethanol subsidies as a way to lower oil prices! However, whether they have or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether Republicans are ignorant and hypocritical by consistently advocating increased oil production, and for criticizing President Obama's blocking production. Sources Pro defends his sources as evidence that Republicans are blaming Obama for high oil prices while not attributing other factors. That's not hypocrisy. President Obama doesn't give a full account of costs either. We only should expect to hear about matters of policy. Summary I doubt any politician in history has ever spent much of his limited time in the national spotlight to explain the factors relevant to a policy that are not at issue. Surely none have spent time making their opponent's case. By Pro's logic, all are therefore ignorant hypocrites. While it's fun to curse politicians, that's simply unfair. In DDO debates, Pro and Con present their respective cases. They don't talk about issues not contested, and they don't use space advocating for their opponent. Debaters are not all ignorant hypocrites as Pro suggests. They just know it's a debate, and that the opposition will make their case. So do politicians.