From a front-page item in today’s New York Times, by John Broder:

President Obama, facing voter anger over high gasoline prices and complaints from Republicans and business leaders that his policies are restricting the development of domestic energy resources, announced on Saturday that he was taking several steps to speed oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters.

It was at least a partial concession to his critics, who say he has shackled domestic energy development at a time when consumers are paying near-record prices at the gas pump. The Republican-led House passed three bills in the last 10 days that would significantly expand and accelerate oil development in the United States, saying the administration was driving up gas prices and preventing job creation with anti-drilling policies.

Got that? Not “Republican critics,” not “pro-drilling advocates,” not “industry critics.” Just “his” critics.

Any hint that any of “his critics” might be pissed that he’s capitulating to industry’s desire to despoil pristine wilderness, further place ocean life and the economies that depend on it at risk, and increase the number of faucets that dispense exploding tapwater? Any quotes from a Gulf coast shrimper or a member of the burgeoning anti-fracking movement?

Any hint that progressive critics of Obama and his policies might be legion in number, include Nobel laureates up the wazoo, and, well, live in reality?

For that matter, any factual correction to the notion among the critics Broder does cite that high prices at the pump reflect shortages rather than the distorting effects of speculation, or that drilling will remedy those prices?

Nope. Fourteen paragraphs down, Broder asserts, “Response from environmental advocates was relatively muted,” quoting an Alaska Audubon Society spokesman who favors Arctic drilling so long as it’s done gingerly. That’s as close to an anti-drilling critic as you’ll find in this article, and it’s not even close.

Weird. You’d think as an utter nonperson I’d be more svelt.