Categories

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Steve Kornacki did his best to (somewhat) subtly accuse Republican presidential candidates as hating Hispanics in this interview:

The big takeaway from this interview is Kellyanne Conway’s statement that “Republicans aren’t afraid of running against Bill and Hillary.” Simply put, there’s more fear amongst Beltway Republicans and GOP consultants than there is with heartland governors.

At this point, Hillary will have a difficult time running as an agent of change or as the candidate of youthful vigor. Hillary has been a fixture in DC for a quarter century. She might’ve been young when she arrived but she isn’t anymore. Fair or unfair, the reality is that she can’t play the agent-of-change-card at this point. She’s reached her sell-by date.

Of course, that’s irrelevant to MSNBC. They’re fixating on Rep. Steve King and Hispanic voters. It’s predictable but it’s a fool’s errand. When the Republican National Convention is held in July, 2016, there’s a distinct possibility that the ticket will be Scott Walker as the nominee and either Marco Rubio or Susana Martinez is his running mate. It’s virtually guaranteed that Martinez, Rubio, Brian Sandoval, Mia Love and Tim Scott will deliver primetime speeches at the convention.

People won’t think “Ohmigod. Republicans are the party of Steve King. I can’t vote for Scott Walker.” Democrats will do everything to paint Republicans as the party that hates Hispanics. That’ll be a difficult task when each night, Republicans will feature a Susana Martinez or a Marco Rubio or a Brian Sandoval, who will likely be in the middle of a fight to unseat Harry Reid at that point.

The excitement in that building will be the buzz. The applause will be frequent, the emotions will be high.

If you want to know what the Republican National Convention will look like, just watch the speeches delivered by Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker. The enthusiasm during those speeches was noticeable and raucous.

Meanwhile, at the Democrats’ convention, the atmosphere won’t be electric. People will be able to contain their energy. The contrast between the two conventions will be stark. That contrast won’t put the Democrats in a positive light.

In the movie Rocky 3, Apollo Creed told Rocky that “When we fought, I trained hard but I didn’t have that look in my eyes. You had it and you won.”

I didn’t say that because I love the movie. I mention it because it’s a lesson between complacency and enthusiasm. There’s no question that, in 2016, the Democrats will work hard. There’s little question that Democrats will be a little complacent, too. If Republicans nominate one of their rising star governors, there’s no question that the 2016 Republican National Convention will be a great launching pad to a GOP victory.

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

If it hadn’t been captured on video, I’d never believe that Rachel Maddow’s guest had talked about President Obama’s “rose-colored glasses.” Here’s that video:

The person Ms. Maddow was interviewing wasn’t Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. She interviewed Richard Engel, NBC’s “chief foreign affairs correspondent.” Here’s what Engel said:

“It seems that the rose-colored glasses through which [President Obama] was viewing the foreign policy were so rose-colored that they don’t even reflect the world that we’re living in,” Engel said during MSNBC’s post-speech coverage. He pointed to recent events in Paris, Iraq, and Syria as signs of the Islamic State and other terror groups’ growing presence worldwide.

“ISIS is doing very well, and the strategy is completely disjointed,” he continued. “To sell that as a success, I think was missing the point, maybe even disingenuous.”

I wrote this article on Examiner, which I titled “America’s first delusional president.” I went a bit further than Engel did but, then again, I wasn’t limited to 85 seconds to get my thoughts in.

In his SOTU speech, President Obama actually said that “Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.” Any speech that includes that line should be nominated for ‘the speech most likely written by someone wearing rose-colored glasses.’ Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t learn the first rule of holes, which is “if you’re in a hole, stop digging.” Later, President Obama added this whopper:

We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small?—?by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies. Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.

Putin isn’t isolated. He took control of the Crimean Peninsula, which was a major part of the Ukraine. Now, Putin is threatening Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, aka the Baltic States. What’s worse is that President Obama sent the Ukrainian government meals ready to eat, aka MREs, when they asked for military weapons after Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.

It’s time that President Obama removed the rose-colored glasses, listened to people who actually know what they’re talking about (as opposed to listening to people like Hillary and John Kerry) and started pushing back against Putin, ISIL and Core al-Qa’ida.

We can’t afford a delusional president.

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

Juan Williams’ column is filled with faulty premises. Here’s the first of Williams’ faulty premises:

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) strategy for defeating Democrats in the final two years of the Obama administration is clear: divide and conquer.

There’s no doubt that Democrats are divided over Keystone. What Williams didn’t detect is that the people are incredibly united on the issue. Almost 70% of registered voters support building the Keystone XL Pipeline. A pathetic 25% of registered voters oppose building it.

If Democrats want to listen to the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party, that’s their right. If Democrats want to ignore the will of the American people, that’s their option, too. Just don’t try telling me that that’s divide and conquer. That’s giving people the option between doing the right thing and playing partisan politics.

Now he is testing Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) ability as minority leader to hold Senate Democrats together in opposition to a Republican agenda favoring the pipeline, halting immigration reform, lowering corporate taxes, and seeking to destroy Obamacare.

If significant numbers of Senate Democrats are willing to join with Republicans to force presidential vetoes, McConnell wins. He gains the power to paint himself as the good guy working across political lines. And he will smear the remaining Democrats as members of an out-of-the-mainstream party in the grips of leftist ideologues — Obama, Reid, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and possibly Hillary Clinton.

Sen. McConnell’s agenda this year consists of passing lots of things that 70+ percent of the American people support. Pundits call that picking off the low-hanging fruit. It’s the stuff that President Obama and Sen. Reid ignored the past 4 years.

It isn’t surprising that Republicans have a different agenda than President Obama and Sen. Reid. President Obama and Sen. Reid frequently thwarted the will of the American people. They weren’t just characterized as out-of-the-mainstream ideologues. It’s that President Obama and Sen. Reid have been out-of-the-mainstream ideologues.

In 2010, the American people spoke with a clear voice that they didn’t like President Obama’s and Sen. Reid’s agenda. This past November, they spoke with an even clearer voice. They rejected President Obama’s and Sen. Reid’s agenda.

Rather than listen to the American people, President Obama said that he isn’t interested in the American people’s agenda. President Obama and the Democrats have forcefully said that they’re interested only in their agenda.

Hooray for Sen. McConnell for putting the Democrats’ feet to the fire. It’s time to find out if they’re aligning with the American people or with the Democrats’ special interest allies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Hillary and Jeb Bush need each other politically. Hillary can’t win the 2016 presidential campaign if Jeb isn’t the GOP nominee. She could defeat Mitt Romney or Chris Christie, too, but the only people taking them seriously work at East Coast newspapers.

Wes Pruden’s column hits on a point that the DC media hasn’t written about:

Hillary can’t win, and that’s why she won’t run. She may not know that yet herself, but a lot of Democrats want her because she’s all they’ve got. The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she’s the candidate they can beat in what looks from here like it could be a Republican year.

I don’t agree with Mr. Pruden’s opinion that she won’t run. Hillary’s ego is too big to admit that she isn’t presidential material. She’s lived her life with the belief that she’s entitled to the job. She’s put up with Bill’s affairs, which she thinks, again, entitles her to her own presidential administration.

The point that I agree with Mr. Pruden on is that she’s the best the Democrats have to offer at this point. She’s mediocre but she’s at the top of the Democrats’ list. There aren’t any talented Democratic governors out there. On the Republican side, there’s an embarrassment of riches in terms of talented Republican governors. The top tier of Republican governors is filled with Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich and Mike Pence.

The next tier is still pretty talented. Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval and Rick Perry inhabit that tier. Each these governors have a substantial list of accomplishments.

By comparison, Hillary’s top accomplishments are that she a) was a US senator from a state so blue that toxic waste would get elected if they had a D behind their name and b) did more travelling as the US Secretary of State than any other US Secretary of State. People can’t look at her and say what her defining policy accomplishment was. They certainly can’t identify something she did as Secretary of State that protected the US from terrorists or that helped defeat the terrorists.

In short, Hillary checked off the appropriate boxes, which qualifies her to get thumped in a presidential election.

Successful men and women are born with an instinct for politics, or they never have it. Bubba was born with it, along with the ability to change convictions like changing his pants. The politicians who have it have no shame exploiting it. If they have the ability to wink, smile and say the right thing they can get by with anything short of murder, and maybe that, too. What can you do with a good ol’ boy like Bubba? He only rarely hit a false note. Hillary never hits anything but.

She’s stiff and wooden as a public speaker, as if trying to prove Dr. Johnson’s famous aphorism that a woman preaching is like a dog trying to walk on its hind legs. Hillary is tone-deaf besides. She’s always starting on her “back foot,” as the English say, and she’s a mediocre campaigner, too.

Hillary’s book tour was a disaster. When Hillary’s history is written, most historians will say that Hillary’s book tour is when her presidential ambitions essentially died.

This article highlights how badly wrong Ruy Teixeira was when he wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority. A dozen years after co-writing The Emerging Democratic Majority with John Judis, it’s clear that proof is piling up that they were wrong:

In the November elections, Democrats lost their eight-year Senate majority, and saw their House numbers fall to the lowest level in seven decades.

In the states, Republicans will hold 31 governorships, and more state legislative seats than they’ve had since 1928. It especially vexes Democrats to see Republicans dominate the U.S. House delegations and the state governments in several states that President Barack Obama won, including huge legislative majorities in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Democrats that think things will improve soon are wrong. Here’s why:

“We believe we’re on the right side of the issues, and all we can do is keeping making the case,” Yarmuth said. “Hopefully we’ll get better at that.” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Tuesday announced a new messaging team led by Steve Israel, D-N.Y. “We need a message,” Israel said. “An effective message doesn’t tell voters what to think. It builds on what they feel.”

A majority of House and Senate Democrats vehemently oppose building the Keystone XL Pipeline. The vast majority of House and Senate Democrats oppose major tinkering with the ACA.

According to the American people, Democrats are on the wrong side of both issues. By a wide margin.

Then there’s the belief that Democrats oppose a robust all-of-the-above energy plan. Actually, it isn’t just a belief. It’s that there’s plentiful proof that Democrats vehemently oppose fossil fuels. They even oppose natural gas, which is pretty foolish.

The other thing that’s holding Democrats down is their honesty deficit. This quote is the perfect illustration of that deficit:

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Democrats must do a better job of highlighting economic improvements and a dramatic increase in energy production under Obama’s watch.

I wrote here that the Obama administration is an impediment to increased energy production:

Oil production on federal lands, those under the president’s control, fell 6 percent since 2009, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, while production on private lands increased 61 percent.

If Democratic politicians like Sen. Kaine keep peddling the notion that the energy boom is the result of the Democrats’ advocacy for increased fossil fuel production, people won’t take them seriously.

That’s what’s led to a shrinking Democratic minority. It hasn’t led to an “emerging Democratic majority.

For years, Democrats have said that we can’t drill our way to cheap oil prices. That’s part of the Democrats’ catechism. Today’s cheap oil prices are forcing Democrats to eat their words:

In 2012, President Obama called it “a slogan, a gimmick, and a bumper sticker … not a strategy. They were waving their three-point plans for $2-a-gallon gas,” Obama told a laughing audience during an energy speech in Washington. “You remember that? Drill, baby, drill. We were going through all that. And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem.”

“‘Drill, baby, drill’ won’t lower gas prices today or tomorrow,” Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif., echoed on the floor of Congress in 2012. “But it will fuel our addiction to fossil fuel.”

Here in St. Cloud, the cheapest gas I’ve seen this month is $1.91/gallon. I remember August, 2008 because the know-it-alls in the DFL were criticizing Michele Bachmann for saying that lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling would lead to $2.00/gallon gasoline if the Democrats would just let it happen. FYI- Gas was at $4.11/gallon at the time.

Naturally, the DFL accused Michele of being insane or of not knowing what she was talking about. On Jan. 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama was sworn in as our 44th president, gas was $1.78/gallon. Nobody in the DFL admitted that Michele was right. The conservative blogosphere, however, was ‘admitting’ it frequently.

Then President Obama’s policies took over and gas prices started increasing. Intentionally.

President Obama is now attempting to claim credit for the latest dramatic drop in oil prices. He shouldn’t. Here’s why:

Oil production on federal lands, those under the president’s control, fell 6 percent since 2009, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, while production on private lands increased 61 percent.

Let’s restate that with different wording. Where President Obama can obstruct the flow of oil, production has dropped by 6% since 2009. Where President Obama can’t obstruct oil production because oil is discovered oil on private lands or under state-owned lands, production has grown by 61% since 2009.

A simple tongue-in-cheek observation is in order. If God is going to create oil, He should create it where the government can’t stop production. Here’s a different observation worth appreciating:

America built the Empire State Building, then the world’s tallest office building, in 410 days during the Depression. We built the Pentagon, still the world’s largest low-rise office building, in 16 months while waging a war across two oceans. Keystone has been studied for more than six years. And Obama considers this insufficient?

Actually, there no longer is any reason to think he has ever reasoned about this. He said he would not make up his mind until the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled. It ruled to permit construction, so he promptly vowed to veto authorization of construction.

After reading all of this information, a person might believe that Democrats are stupid when it comes to the rules of supply and demand. They aren’t, though they frequently sound like it. It’s that Democrats are willing to say anything to appease the environment activist wing of the Democratic Party rather than doing the right thing.

This is instructive:

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) objected that if Congress authorizes construction of Keystone this “would take consideration out of the hands of the administration,” and “out of the current administration process.”

The reason why Republicans want this taken “out of the current administration process” is because the process is the fast track to nowhere, which is the Democrats’ goal.

Simply put, it’s time to tell the Democrats to sit down and shut up when it comes to setting energy policy. Thanks to the work done at the state level and by private landowners, the US is on the cusp of regaining its status of being the world’s energy superpower.

It’s instructive that Democrats are attempting to obstruct that progress for the American people.

This editorial by the Mesabi Daily News’ Editorial Board beautifully defines who’s fighting against the Keystone XL Pipeline project:

So why should the Barack Obama administration continue to drag this “good for the USA” project out after six years of review and a recent Nebraska Supreme Court ruling paving the way on a local level for the pipeline?

We see no reason other than the president being controlled by the far-left environmental wing of the Democratic Party that is so far out of step with the vast majority of Americans that you need some powerful binoculars to even find its members.

Let’s be blunt. The environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party isn’t just out of step with “the vast majority of Americans.” It isn’t that you’d “need powerful binoculars” to see these activists from America’s political mainstream.

It’s that the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party isn’t interested in anyone’s opinions. They’re like crazed cult members. Though these environmental activists don’t respect other people’s opinions, that doesn’t mean they’ll pick fights with the people that support their agenda:

And we would also like to hear what both Sens. Klobuchar and Franken think about what the anti-Keystone zealots say about the thousands and thousands of construction jobs that would be created by the pipeline.

The people that make up the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party will never get asked difficult questions by politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken. That’s because politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken know that environmentalists are significantly more reliable Democrat votes than construction union members are.

Members of the local pipefitters or other unions sometimes meander away from the Democratic Party. Politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken know that. They also know that environmental activists vote for Democrats almost as reliably as journalists or trial attorneys. Private sector union workers don’t.

That’s why Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken voted against cloture on S.1, the bill that would force the Obama administration to permit construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline:

The motion passed with strong bipartisan support by a 63-32 margin. Five senators didn’t vote. Democrats mocked Republicans for coming up with slogans like “Drill, baby, drill” and “Drill here, drill now, pay less”:

It isn’t that Democrats are stupid when it comes to energy policy. It’s that they’re that beholden to those crazed cult members known as environmental activists. You know the type. They’re the wing of the Democratic Party that’s “so far out of step with the vast majority of Americans that you need some powerful binoculars to even find its members.”

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

In 2007-08, then-Sen. Obama campaigned as America’s first post-partisan presidential candidate. In 2004, he said he envisioned a nation not composed of red states and blue states. He envisioned a return to the US becoming the United States. President Obama lied to us. Here’s what we got instead:

Matt Lewis nailed it in this article:

[The Keystone XL Pipeline]project has been mired in controversy and delay for years. But it actually has supporters on both sides of the aisle, including labor unions on the left and free-market conservatives on the right. It’s largely just liberal environmentalists who are pressuring Democrats to hold things up.

That’s more proof that President Obama earned the title of being the “Most-Partisan President” in US history. He’s done more to stand in the way of progress than Jimmy Carter could’ve done in 4 presidential terms.

Here’s the part that Lewis especially got right:

Obama has the ability to rhetorically present both sides of every issue. But he also has a habit of ultimately coming down on the left side. He’s a liberal at heart. But there’s more to it than that. Obama fans are loathe to admit it, but the president can be a divider, and an obstructionist.

It’s foolish to think that President Obama plays things straight down the middle. That isn’t him. He’s a hardline leftist who hates compromise. We’ve seen, in fact, through his delaying the employer mandate and his executive actions on immigration that he’s mostly an autocrat. He isn’t a statesman or a diplomat. He’s a hardline leftist autocrat at heart.

But Obama’s own State Department produced an environmental impact statement long ago green-lighting the project. “The central finding in the draft environmental impact statement,” The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told NPR’s Terry Gross last year, “was, if you don’t build Keystone, the Canadians will sell this stuff anyway, they’ll build pipelines to their east coast, to their west coast, and they’ll send it to the Gulf of Mexico via rail, and by the way, sending oil by rail releases a whole lot more greenhouse gas emissions than putting it in a pipeline.”

I knew that President Obama’s initial explanation for delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline project was dishonest. Pundits at the time said it was just to get past the 2012 election without upsetting the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party. I immediately said that he wasn’t worried about upsetting the environmental activists in the Democratic Party. I said that he did it because he’s an environmental activist at heart.

President Obama has given us ample proof that he’s the “Most-Partisan President” in US history. It’s up to us to believe what our eyes have seen.

If ever there was proof that Democrats hate the fracking boom, this article provide that proof:

Still, conservatives and centrist Democrats will be watching for several regulations the Obama administration is expected to propose this year so that they are finished before the president leaves office.

The first would be Interior Department rules on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that they call duplicative. “That will end up in legal challenge, but there may be legislative action or oversight there as well,” said Matt Kellogg, manager of government affairs at the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

It isn’t just the EPA that wants to abolish fracking:

The state of New York is officially moving toward a fracking ban.

After presenting the findings of an exhaustive five-year study on the potential environmental, economic, and public health effects of fracking, state Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Joseph Marten said he would issue a “legally binding findings statement” seeking prohibition of the controversial process.

Fracking is the process of injecting high-pressure volumes of water, sand, and chemicals underground to crack shale rock and let gas flow out more easily.

DFL legislators in Minnesota tried imposing a moratorium on frack sand mining. During the debate on the House floor, one DFL legislator said that imposing the moratorium might stop oil production on the Bakken. That’s a silly statement but it’s a perfect illustration of the DFL’s opposition to fracking.

What’s ridiculous is that Democrats support the EPA’s rules that oppose fracking, then praise President Obama for increasing oil production. It’s the environmental equivalent of John Kerry saying that he voted to fund the Iraq War before he voted against it.

Let’s simplify things. First, it’s undeniable that Democrats support EPA regulations that would restrict oil production. Next, it’s verifiable that Democrats still want to take credit for the increase in oil production because cheap gas prices are popular politically.