Categories

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Brian Beutler’s article is a testimony to how warped hardline progressives’ thinking is. Check this out:

At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in fifty years. So the verdict is clear. Middle-class economics works.

As a theme, this riff should have struck a chord with the conservative movement’s myriad Reaganologists.

This, supposedly, is Beutler’s attempt to prove that Barack Obama is the next Reagan. Let’s check that comparison. The ‘Obama Recovery’ is still the slowest recovery in history. It’s created few full-time jobs. Most of the jobs it’s created are part-time jobs. Economic growth has stagnated because a) regulation has skyrocketed and b) Obamacare became the law of the land.

Most of the full-time jobs that’ve been created were created in spite of Obama’s policies. Think Texas, which is pretty much putting anti-Obama policies in place, and North Dakota, where the Bakken Boom is happening because they didn’t have to deal with Obama’s oppressive, stifling regulations.

Any comparison with Reagan is foolish. In September, 1983, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. For 6 straight quarters, GDP topped 5%. Thus far, the economy hasn’t grown by 4% two quarters in a row. It hasn’t had back-to-back quarters topping 3.5%.

Comparing Obamanomics with Reaganomics is like comparing a small plate of tofu with a thick, juicy steak with a side of hash browns. They’re both food but that’s where the similarity ends.

The economy’s rapid growth in recent quarters has scrambled these assumptions, and now the White House is pitching the Reagan comparison to political reporters in Washington.

What rapid growth? Seriously? Economists will slap down Beutler’s claims in a New York minute.

“All historical analogies are imperfect,” Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told me recently, but “people connected the economic success of the ’80s to Reagan’s policies and Democrats also became convinced that the only way to win was to move to the middle. … We want to make sure people understand the policies we put in place, how they work, how they’ve improved their situation, so when Republicans get back into it we’ll have shifted the four corners of the political debate to the left.”

First, there’s no question that President Obama’s policies are definitely to the left of where people are at. Further, there’s no question that it’ll take time to fix the myriad of messes President Obama has created.

Finally, here are the biggest ways to show Obama isn’t like Reagan:

  1. Economic growth was robust during the last 6 years of Reagan’s time in office.
  2. Economic growth during President Obama’s time in office has been pathetic.
  3. Reagan’s national security policies brought the Soviet empire to its knees.
  4. President Obama’s policies of appeasement has helped terrorism expand its control while threatening most of the civilized world.

Other than that, Obama’s accomplishments are virtually identical with Reagan’s.

This ABC article highlights just how much the Obama administration’s disgust with Israel has grown. Relations between Israel and the US have never been this frosty. President Obama apparently intends on giving Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu the cold shoulder treatment when he visits DC:

In what is becoming an increasingly nasty grudge match, the White House is mulling ways to undercut Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming trip to Washington and blunt his message that a potential nuclear deal with Iran is bad for Israel and the world.

There are limits. Administration officials have discarded the idea of President Barack Obama himself giving an Iran-related address to rebut the two speeches Netanyahu is to deliver during his early March visit. But other options remain on the table.

Among them: a presidential interview with a prominent journalist known for coverage of the rift between Obama and Netanyahu, multiple Sunday show television appearances by senior national security aides and a pointed snub of America’s leading pro-Israel lobby, which is holding its annual meeting while Netanyahu is in Washington, according to the officials.

The administration has already ruled out meetings between Netanyahu and Obama, saying it would be inappropriate for the two to meet so close to Israel’s March 17 elections. But the White House is now doubling down on a cold-shoulder strategy, including dispatching Cabinet members out of the country and sending a lower-ranking official than normal to represent the administration at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the officials said.

It’s apparent that President Obama’s disgust with Israel isn’t going away anytime soon. It isn’t surprising that he’s got the chilliest relationship with Israel of all the US presidents since Israel became a nation in 1948.

Vice President Joe Biden will be away, his absence behind Netanyahu conspicuous in coverage of the speech to Congress. Other options were described by officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

President Obama’s childishness has never been more on display than right now. He’s acting like a petulant little child who’s throwing a hissy fit because he isn’t getting his way.

U.S. officials believe Netanyahu’s trip to Washington is aimed primarily at derailing a nuclear deal with Iran, Obama’s signature foreign policy objective. While Netanyahu has long been skeptical of the negotiations, his opposition has increased over what he sees as Obama’s willingness to make concessions that would leave Iran on the brink of being able to build a nuclear weapon. His opposition has intensified as negotiations go into overdrive with an end-of-March deadline for a framework deal.

It’s frightening that the Obama administration thinks that letting Iran become a nuclear power is an “accomplishment.” I’d consider it a failure of historic proportions. Giving the leading terrorist nation nuclear weapons is stupid. Prime Minister Netanyahu is right in being worried about Iran going nuclear.

A true ally, which the Obama administration and most Democrats aren’t, wouldn’t let Iran get a nuclear weapon. This is just further proof that this administration doesn’t see the world that exists. It sees the world it wants to exist.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

This polling says everything in terms of the Democratic Party’s utter disdain for the Constitution and their appreciation for anarchy:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Sixty percent (60%) disagree and say the president should not have the right to ignore the courts. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Rasmussen wouldn’t have gotten these results if Scott Walker were president. Democrats, aka the ‘ends-justifies-the-means-when-we’re-in-power-party, only care about the rule of law when a Republican is in the White House.

Imagine what the Democrats’ response would be if President Walker permanently suspended the ACA’s major provisions, starting with the employer and individual mandates, then continuing with the collection of revenues from the medical device manufacturers’ excise tax before finally writing a regulation that eliminates the requirements for the qualified health plans.

I’m betting that less than 10% of Democrats would think that Gov. Walker “should have the right to ignore the courts if he tried gutting the ACA. It’s all about whose ox is getting gored, isn’t it? Thinking that the laws apply to others but not to you is as anti-American as it gets. Either the law applies to everyone or there’s chaos and division.

President Obama and his supporters support splitting America. He’s worked on that since his inauguration. His divisiveness showed early. Rather than accepting suggestions from Republicans on his stimulus bill, he shafted them, saying that “I won.” President Obama’s my-way-or-the-highway style of governance took hit after hit in the courts on issues of presidential overreach. No other president has had 13 straight unanimous rulings go against him in the Supreme Court.

Even judges he appointed rejected his arguments in these cases.

Days before his election, President Obama said that he and his supporters were just days away from transforming America. While it’s true he changed the Democratic Party, he, thankfully, failed in changing America. The Democrats went from being the evil party to the party of lawlessness.

This week, we’ve been subjected to some of the most idiotic thinking about the expanding ISIS threat against civilization. While middle east nation after middle east nation is visited with treachery, President Obama and Vice President Biden hosted a conference on “violent extremism.” Here’s something President Obama said Thursday that’s gotten my attention:

First, we must remain unwavering in our fight against terrorist organizations. And in Afghanistan, our coalition is focused on training and assisting Afghan forces, and we’ll continue to conduct counterterrorism missions against the remnants of al Qaeda in the tribal regions. When necessary, the United States will continue to take action against al Qaeda affiliates in places like Yemen and Somalia. We will continue to work with partners to help them build up their security forces so that they can prevent ungoverned spaces where terrorists find safe haven, and so they can push back against groups like al-Shabaab and Boko Haram.

President Obama’s words sound reassuring. Unfortunately, like his State of the Union Address, his words don’t reflect reality. Saying that “the United States will continue to take action against al Qaeda affiliates in places like Yemen” is total BS. The US embassy in Sana’a was hastily evacuated. Top secret or classified documents were left behind.

This is foolishness:

The Syrian civil war will only end when there is an inclusive political transition and a government that serves Syrians of all ethnicities and religions. And across the region, the terror campaigns between Sunnis and Shia will only end when major powers address their differences through dialogue, and not through proxy wars. So countering violent extremism begins with political, civic and religious leaders rejecting sectarian strife.

When a house is burning, the first step is to call 9-1-1, not hold a discussion on the flammability of various building materials. In a crisis, putting out the fire first is more important than rewriting building codes so houses are less likely to catch fire.

Whether President Obama is using this summit as a way to not take the fight to ISIL or whether he’s just acting like a professor because that’s his nature, it’s irrelevant. He’d be much better off applying President Reagan’s strategy towards the Soviets. When asked what his strategy was towards the Soviets, President Reagan said let’s offer them a reset switch “Simple. We win, they lose.”

Since launching airstrikes against ISIS, the US has averaged 7 strike sorties a day against ISIL. That’s proof that Obama is fiddling while ISIS continues its expansion.

This NYTimes op-ed is long on accusations but short on constitutional logic. Here’s an example of that:

Judge Hanen said the costs were the result of the federal government’s “failure to secure the borders,” and he noted the millions of dollars that states spend to educate “each illegal alien child,” even though, as he knows, the Constitution already requires states to provide that education. He danced around the fundamental point, as the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012, that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states.

Notice that the NYTimes tip-toed around the fact that Congress writes immigration laws and that a president only signs immigration bills he or she agrees with into law. The NYTimes didn’t take time to define what each branch’s role is in writing and implementing new laws.

That’s the procedure for all laws, not just immigration laws. Presumably, a constitutional law scholar like President Obama knows the drill.

This is typical liberal BS:

However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. With his humane and realistic immigration policy, he is trying to tackle a huge and long-running national problem: what to do with more than 11 million undocumented people who are living, working and raising families here, when the government cannot possibly apprehend or deport all of them.

This is more proof that President Obama isn’t interested in negotiating with people who don’t reflexively agree with him. Notice that the NYTimes doesn’t criticize President Obama for being intransigent. That criticism is reserved exclusively for Republicans.

Notice that the NYTimes didn’t criticize President Obama for all the times President Obama deployed a my-way-or-the-highway mindset, starting with his meeting with Republicans about his stimulus bill. That’s when Republicans offered a number of improvements to the bill, only to be told by President Obama that “We won.” That’s intransigence personified.

Now Judge Hanen has reminded President Obama that presidents aren’t emperors. President Obama’s reaction to that reminder is to lash out, albeit in a calm tone of voice, that Judge Hanen’s ruling is standing in his way.

The Founding Fathers built the Constitution the way that they did to guarantee that both political branches needed to negotiate with each other. That’s the last thing President Obama wants. President Obama gave an entire series of speeches built around the refrain that “We can’t wait.” Thankfully, the judiciary didn’t let this president do everything he and his Democratic Party allies wanted to do.

Finally, this administration isn’t supposedly lawless. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against President Obama 13 straight times on issues of executive overreach. That’s proven lawlessness. That isn’t imagined lawlessness.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Last week, Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, said that “as a nation, we are stronger than we’ve been in a very long time.” Egyptian Coptic Christians couldn’t comment on Ms. Rice’s statement because they’d been slaughtered by ISIL-affiliated terrorists in Libya. This article indicates that ISIS, aka ISIL, is rapidly expanding:

Since exploding onto the world stage as a conquering force in Iraq a year ago, the Islamic State has expanded its reach across the Middle East despite a U.S.-led bombing campaign that has killed thousands of militants and destroyed tons of their equipment.

It’s insulting to hear people calling the air operations in Iraq a bombing campaign. The air war that Chuck Horner conducted in Operation Desert Storm was a full-fledged air war. According to Mark Gunzinger’s and John Stillion’s WSJ article, sorties flown per day against ISIS targets is pathetic. Here’s a comparison of various air wars:

For instance, during the 43-day Desert Storm air campaign against Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1991, coalition fighters and bombers flew 48,224 strike sorties. This translates to roughly 1,100 sorties a day. Twelve years later, the 31-day air campaign that helped free Iraq from Saddam’s government averaged more than 800 offensive sorties a day.

By contrast, over the past two months U.S. aircraft and a small number of partner forces have conducted 412 total strikes in Iraq and Syria—an average of seven strikes a day. With Islamic State in control of an area approaching 50,000 square miles, it is easy to see why this level of effort has not had much impact on its operations.

That’s the difference between warfare whose objective is to annihilate the enemy and photo-op pin prick airstrikes designed to provide President Obama political cover. It’s impossible to deny that President Obama is the anti-war president. Thanks to President Obama’s reticence to wage serious war against a dangerous terrorist nation, ISIS is growing:

The Islamic State is expanding beyond its base in Syria and Iraq to establish militant affiliates in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt and Libya, American intelligence officials assert, raising the prospect of a new global war on terror.

That isn’t all. Here’s more proof of ISIL’s growth:

Mr Zeidan, who fled to Europe after losing a parliamentary vote of confidence, reported that Isis had a growing presence in some of the bigger cities and was trying to recruit fighters from rival Islamist groups.

Aref Ali Nayed, Libya’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, also said Isis’s presence in Libya was increasing “exponentially”. Its military gains last summer sparked a rush by other Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa to ally themselves with the group by pledging allegiance and changing their names. The jihadists behind the beheadings in Libya call themselves the Tripoli Province of the Islamic State.

President Obama is a bigger national security failure than Jimmy Carter, which is something I never thought I’d say.

The thing that President Obama calls “strategic patience” was called appeasement when Jimmy Carter was president. The spin has changed but the disastrous policies remain the same.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article highlights the virtue of President Obama’s policy of strategic patience:

A video purporting to show the mass beheading of Coptic Christian hostages was released Sunday by militants in Libya affiliated with the Islamic State group.

The killings raise the possibility that the Islamic militant group — which controls about a third of Syria and Iraq in a self-declared caliphate — has established a direct affiliate less than 500 miles (800 kilometers) from the southern tip of Italy. One of the militants in the video makes direct reference to that possibility, saying the group now plans to “conquer Rome.”

The militants had been holding 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians hostage for weeks, all laborers rounded up from the city of Sirte in December and January. It was not clear from the video whether all 21 hostages were killed. It was one of the first such beheading videos from an Islamic State group affiliate to come from outside the group’s core territory in Syria and Iraq.

What’s amazing is what Susan Rice, President Obama’s NSA, said recently at the Brookings Institute:

“As a nation, we are stronger than we’ve been in a very long time.”

Here’s what Ms. Rice said later in that speech:

Ms. Rice said that the Obama administration had “brought home almost 170,000 American troops, responsibly ending 2 costly and long ground wars and re-purposing our military’s strength so we can better respond to emerging threats and crises.”

The Middle East and north Africa are being controlled by ISIS. Meanwhile, Americans were evacuated, hurriedly, from the US embassy in Yemen by al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, aka AQAP. Coptic Christians are being ruthlessly slaughtered in Libya.

A year ago, President Obama called ISIS a JV team after ISIS had captured Fallujah. This year, ISIS controls one-third of Iraq and Syria and is branching out into Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt and Libya. Anyone with a modest understanding knows that Libya is only a few hundred miles from Rome.

Egyptian President el-Sissi is more courageous than President Obama:

The Egyptian government declared a seven-day mourning period and President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi addressed the nation late Sunday night, pledging resilience in the fight against terrorism.

“These cowardly actions will not undermine our determination” said el-Sissi, who also banned all travel to Libya by Egyptian citizens and said his government reserves the right to seek retaliation. “Egypt and the whole world are in a fierce battle with extremist groups carrying extremist ideology and sharing the same goals.”

President el-Sissi knows what ISIS is. He’s fighting them with everything he’s got. Meanwhile, President Obama preaches that doing nothing to stop the rapidly metastasizing threat from ISIS is the right strategy.

I’d rather trust el-Sissi than trust the occupant of the White House. That’s because President Obama insists that doing nothing is making America safer. Ask Bill Clinton if taking a holiday from history made America safer in the 1990s.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jim Geraghty’s evaluation of the GOP presidential candidates is fascinating. Rather than starting with the top tier candidates, let’s start by hearing what he said about the MSM’s top tier:

Jeb Bush: Sure, he’ll have the money, and he’ll have the name. But let’s not even get into the immigration, Common Core, business ties or family dynasty issues yet. Republican primary voters, particularly conservative ones, think that the Obama presidency is the worst calamity to hit America in their lifetimes, and fear it is doing permanent damage to the national values, identity, and standing in the world. GOP primary voters are going to want a fighter, and do they think Jeb Bush has been leading the fight against Obama?

Mitt Romney: When people tell Mitt Romney, “Governor, I really wish you had won in 2012,” they’re not saying, “Governor, I think you would have been one of the greatest presidents in our lifetimes.” They’re saying, “Governor, Obama is really, really, really terrible, and electing you would have spared the country a lot of pain.” He’s a good man, but a lot of Republicans are ready to move on to new options. Plus, you know… Gruber.

Chris Christie: If Bush and Romney are both in, you have to wonder how many big donors stick by him. He did better in his Iowa appearance than some might have expected, and he’s undoubtedly going to be a dominant figure in the debates. But he’s positioned himself in opposition to the rest of the party way too often, and you can’t win the GOP nomination from the Jon Huntsman slot, as the Republican nominee most acceptable to the Acela class that can’t stand Republicans.

Rand Paul: He’ll have his dad’s network, and he’s way more compelling than his father was. But there’s a ceiling to Libertarian-minded candidates in the modern Republican Party, and it’s going to be tougher to sell quasi-isolationist non-interventionism as the world blows up and grows even more dangerous in Obama’s final two years in office.

This isn’t 2008 or 2012, when the GOP didn’t field a bunch of top tier candidates like they’re fielding this year. In 2012, Paul Ryan would’ve swamped the field, including Mitt. This year, Paul Ryan would have a respectable following but he wouldn’t be seen as the prohibitive favorite.

Jeb Bush has irritated conservatives far too often to win the nomination. Sen. McCain got away with that in 2008 because he ran against a field of weaklings. Jeb won’t get away with that this time because he’s running against a virtual team of Olympic weightlifters. Mitt’s time came and went. Whether he officially runs is almost irrelevant at this point. That’s because he’s overmatched.

First Tier:

Scott Walker: He’s serious and accomplished enough for the “Establishment,” and indisputably conservative enough for the grassroots. The Left threw everything it had at this guy and he’s still going strong. Despite the questions about his charisma, he’s getting rave reviews for his passion in his appearance this weekend.

Marco Rubio: He’s arguably the best communicator in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party desperately needs a good communicator as its nominee.

With rave reviews from Charles Krauthammer and James Pethokoukis, he could end up being the conservative pundits’ favorite choice. Yes, there’s still irritation about the gang of “Gang of Eight” and anti-Senator skepticism to overcome, but he’s speaking about the broad, unifying national theme of American exceptionalism since 2010. Obviously, he offers a fantastic contrast with Hillary.

Rick Perry: The former governor of Texas is likely to be the only re-running candidate who improves upon his past performance. He still has a sterling economic record to point to, he’s been going toe-to-toe with the Obama administration consistently, he’s got enough charm to work on Jimmy Kimmel. This time, he won’t be coming off back surgery, he won’t start late and we’ll see just how much the hipster glasses help.

Bobby Jindal: Yes, he needs to speak slower. Yes, it’s not clear that a style that works in Louisiana will work on the national stage. But he’s a bit like Walker in that he’s amassed an indisputably conservative record while getting things done in two terms. There’s probably not another contender who knows more detail about more policies, and he’s guided his state through some severe challenges – post-Katrina rebuilding, a pair of serious hurricanes, the Deepwater Horizon and the drilling moratorium. What’s more, he’s been fighting the administration on issues like school choice for years and he moves fast when an opportunity opens like the House GOP botching a late-term abortion bill.

After Gov. Walker’s performance at Saturday’s Freedom Summit, he’ll be one of the most formidable candidates on either side of the aisle. While Hillary has her supporters, she doesn’t have supporters that’d run through brick walls to help her win. Gov. Walker’s supporters are passionate and they’re willing to do anything to help him win. (You don’t win 3 elections in 4 years by having supporters who are indifferent.)

As for Marco Rubio, there’s no question that his participation in the Gang of Eight immigration bill will hurt him with primary voters. Still, there’s no denying that he’s a powerful communicator with a compelling personal story that shouts ‘I’m living the American dream.’

Rick Perry is being written off by the MSM. That’s a mistake. They’ve focused too much on Perry’s oops moment during the 2012 and not enough on what he’s done on securing Texas’ border during the flood of unattended children. He’s a much more serious candidate this time.

At this point, I’d argue that Republicans are likely to win the White House. People are sick of President Obama and they just aren’t excited about Hillary. She’s been on the national scene for a quarter century. It’s impossible to sell yourself as a fresh face with Hillary’s resume.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Glenn Reynolds’ column proves that President Obama is waging war against the middle class:

Though millions of Americans have been putting money into “tax free” 529 plans to save for their children’s increasingly expensive college educations, President Obama would change the law so that withdrawals from the plans to fund college would be taxed as ordinary income. So while you used to be able to get a nice tax benefit by saving for college, now you’ll be shelling out to Uncle Sam every time you withdraw to pay for Junior’s dorm fees.

This doesn’t hurt the very rich, who just pay for college out of pocket, or the poor, who get financial aid, but it’s pretty rough on the middle– and upper–middle class. In a double-whammy, those withdrawals will show up as income on parents’ income tax forms, which are used to calculate financial aid, making them look richer, and hence reducing grants.

In other words, President Obama’s plan would tax middle class parents who’ve done the right thing by saving for their children’s college education. Taxing the middle class for doing the right thing sounds perfectly like a Democrats’ plan.

Giving people an incentive to do what’s right makes sense. Giving people an incentive to stop doing what’s right is either stupidity or it’s evil or it’s a little of both. People would be wise to pay attention to Dr. Reynolds’ admonition:

For the moment, Americans are safe. With both houses of Congress controlled by the GOP, Obama’s proposals are DOA. But over the long term, the appetite for government spending is effectively endless, while the sources of revenue are limited. Keep that in mind as you think about where to invest your money … and your votes.

Democrats are reflexively starving for new revenue streams, aka raising taxes. The important question for people to ask is whether the laundry list of things the Democrats want to spend the tax increases on are needs or if they’re just wish list items. Another important question voters should ask is what’s most efficient: saving for their needs or paying taxes to have government pay for what they need…after the government takes its cut of the taxes.

Finally, the most important question to ask is whether government is efficient in doing anything. That isn’t the same as asking whether government should exist. It’s just asking if government, in its current form, efficiently spends money on the most important things.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

The biggest difference between the speech Joni Ernst delivered and President Obama’s SOTU speech, other than the fact that Ernst’s speech dealt with reality and President Obama’s speech didn’t, is that Sen. Ernst said that Republicans will listen to the American people:

Tonight though, rather than respond to a speech, I’d like to talk about your priorities. I’d like to have a conversation about the new Republican Congress you just elected, and how we plan to make Washington focus on your concerns again.

We heard the message you sent in November — loud and clear. And now we’re getting to work to change the direction Washington has been taking our country.

The new Republican Congress also understands how difficult these past six years have been. For many of us, the sting of the economy and the frustration with Washington’s dysfunction, weren’t things we had to read about. We felt them every day.

President Obama’s speech was different in that he couldn’t admit to the truth:

Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis.

The economy is doing better than the first 6 years of the Obama economy, mostly despite President Obama’s best efforts to hurt the economy. We’re benefitting from the private- and state-lands fracking boom. The Bakken Boom happened despite President Obama’s attempts to prevent it. It didn’t happen because President Obama’s policies encouraged it. That isn’t speculation. That’s indisputable fact based on statistics from the Obama administration’s Energy Information Administration.

During last night’s SOTU address, President Obama pretended that al-Qa’ida didn’t exist, that the economy is booming and that the 2014 elections didn’t happen. The bad news for President Obama and the Democratic Party is that al-Qa’ida is gaining strength, the economy is doing so-so and he experienced another butt-kicking in the 2014 midterms.

Brian Beutler wrote this article after last night’s speech. Apparently, he suffers from the same mental disorder President Obama suffers from:

If Democrats controlled Congress, Congress wouldn’t have treated Obama’s address like a dead letter and Obama might have tailored it more narrowly, careful not to ask for more than Congress could plausibly deliver.

BULLETIN FOR BRIAN BEUTLER: The reason Democrats don’t control Congress is because the American people rejected President Obama’s agenda. The American people saw the agenda. The American people saw President Obama’s policies fail. In 2014, they said ‘I’ve had it’ and threw Democrats out.

The verdict from the American people was that they’d had enough of President Obama’s failed policies.

Joni Ernst didn’t offer a lengthy list of Republican solutions. Instead, she said something more important. She told the American people that Republicans were listening to the American people. Then she told them that Republicans would act on the things that the American people’s priorities.

That’s why Joni Ernst’s speech was consequential over the long term and why President Obama’s speech will be forgotten before the Super Bowl is played.