Energy Bill Criticism?

Normally I enjoy Rich Lowry's writing in National Review, but today something has struck me funny. His article on the President's recently passed energy bill somehow does not pass muster. Perhaps further research is needed, but my instincts seem to be working on this occasion. For if Mr. Lowry is correct, then some of the things that we have taken for granted as conservatives are in some way incorrect. First off, to not be very specific, he cites a New York Times article on the newly allowed leases to drill in ANWR. I've read this article, and when any piece of journalism, uses a citation, “an administration official recently told...”, my B.S. detector goes off. What official? Which administration? I know journalistic integrity and protection of sources and all that clap-trap, but come on! Anyone with a point to make can use that moniker, it cannot be disproven.
According to Lowry's article, the President would have been better off not submitting this bill to congress at all. He cites the current glut in supply of the California power grid as a bad thing. The power crisis out in the golden state is what prompted the bill in the first place. So, the bill began as reactionary and now can be seen as “proactionary”. Which in my book is always a good thing. Lowry calls the bill, Bush's “magic wand”. Sorry Rich I don't get that reference. He says he is for letting the market adjust for the current high prices in gasoline driven by former communistic and third world markets. Taking a step back, that idea smacks of further dependence on foreign oil and a return to the crappy cars of the 1970's. Does anyone recall the AMC vehicles, the late 70's Mustang, and please Lord, not Le Car's.
Lowry intimates that so-called “big oil” is not for drilling in ANWR, okay let “little oil” drill there. I would if I could. Exploration in this hemisphere is what we have been screaming for. And not only that, the bill is not the government trying to “solve high gas prices...”, its the President taking down roadblocks. Lowry says the idea of building refineries on the grounds of closed military installations does not make sense because the installations are not geographically feasible. Well, let them build more pipelines and make them geographically feasible.
The bill is pro-active. The bill supports development in our infrastructure. The bill allows for energy exploration and power-plant building, two things that have not happened in almost thirty years. The bill seems to allow for our own home-grown ingenuity to flourish. All good things.

Bottom Line: I understand conservative journalists feel the need to criticise when they see something they deem as wrong no matter the political affiliation, but don't stretch for that criticism and please pick your targets a little better.