Obama Hits Opponents With Chicago Brass Knuckles

by Michael Barone, Townhall.com

"His father was a great friend of my father." The reference to William Ayers' father was how Mayor Richard M. Daley began his defense of Barack Obama for his association with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Daley's father, of course, was Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976. Ayers' father was head of Commonwealth Edison, the Chicago-based utility, from 1964 to 1980.

You bet they were great friends. That's governance, Chicago style. The head of government is friends with the heads of every big business, lobby and union, and together they make decisions on how everyone else will live. Those on the inside get what they want. Those on the outside -- well, they get what the big guys want them to have. That's life in the big city.

It's not the worst way to run a city. I know -- I'm from Detroit, which might be better off if it had mayors named Daley for 41 of the last 54 years. But it's not the optimal way to run a national administration, at least if you've promised to bring in a new era of bipartisanship and mutual respect. Even so, it appears to be the way that Barack Obama, who once aspired to be mayor of Chicago, has decided to run his administration.

We can see that nowhere better than on the health care issue. Over the spring and summer, the White House door has been wide open to lobbyists from health care businesses. The doctors' lobby has gotten promises that physician payments won't be knocked down too much. In return, they are expected to lobby for whatever bill the congressional Democrats come up with.

The pharmaceutical firms' lobbyist, former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, has gotten assurances that his clients' business model won't be wrecked any more than it already has been by stringent regulation. In return PhRMA is running TV ads for health care reform.

The health insurance companies were on board, too. Until, that is, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus presented his bill requiring them to cover anyone who applies but exacting only small fines from healthy individuals who decide not to buy insurance until they get sick. Since this looked like a quick road to bankruptcy, the health insurers' lobby commissioned a study that pointed out, correctly I think, that the Baucus bill would increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it.

The response of the Chicago-style Obama White House was reminiscent of the response of the late Mayor Daley when asked an inconvenient question by a reporter whose father and brother were Democratic precinct committeemen. "Sometimes in the best of families, there's a bad apple," replied Daley, to the bewilderment of reporters from out of town. A bad apple is, in Chicago, a former great friend who is not playing team ball.

So the health insurers have been denounced by White House spokesmen and Democratic congressional leaders as foul fiends and gougers of working families. Prominent Democrats have been talking about revoking insurance companies' exemption from the antitrust laws (granted so that small firms would have access to data needed to compete with the giants). Translated into Chicagoese: Nice little insurance company you got there. Too bad if something happened to it.

The same treatment is being given to Fox News, which according to White House spokesmen, "is not a news organization." "Other news organizations, like yours," Obama consigliere David Axelrod told ABC News, "ought not to treat them that way."

In other words, when Fox breaks the news that the White House green czar is a self-proclaimed "Communist" or that operatives of pro-Obama ACORN have been aiding and abetting child prostitution, other news outlets should spike the story. Or risk being demoted from great friend to bad apple.

Last February, Obama told Fox News (to which I am a contributor), "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lockstep here."

Now we are. Maybe Obama thought everyone in Washington would be his great friend. Having encountered un-Chicago-like dissent and disagreement, he has responded with classic Chicago brass knuckles. We'll see how far this kind of thuggery gets him.

Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

— Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and the Republican candidate for vice ­president in 2008. This article appears in the November 2, 2009,

Is Obama a Fool!

October 14, 2009 Posted by John Hinderaker, Powerline

Scott is on record as believing that he is; I have reserved judgment. President Obama's apparently unilateral concession to Russia in abandoning our anti-missile defense system in central Europe, with no publicly-acknowledged quid pro quo, may support the view that in international relations, at least, Obama is a fool. But we need to be fair here: it is possible that this seemingly unilateral giveaway was, in fact, a bargain, and that Obama got something from the Russians, presumably in relation to Russia's client Iran, that has not yet become public.

So this report on Hillary Clinton's trip to Russia is worrisome:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature". ...

Clinton failed to secure any specific assurances from Russia on Iran during her visit, leaving her open to criticism at home that she had not received anything from Moscow after earlier U.S. concessions on missile defence.

I'm not giving up hope yet. Maybe Obama didn't really give away the store for nothing. So far, though, there is no evidence that he got anything from Russia in exchange for his abandonment of European missile defense. Could Obama possibly be that inept a negotiator? Time will tell.

NOT BUYING IT, EVEN IN NORWAY

October 10, 2009 Posted by John Hinderacker, Powerline at 10:53 AM

Reader Alan Macomber writes:

Got curious about how the media in Norway is playing the Nobel Peace Prize decision (I read/write Norwegian fluently), so I check out the Aftenposten (largest daily) this morning. Found one of those opinion poll widgets on their site- vote on if you think the prize to Obama was correct. 62% of Aftenposten's own Norwegian readers voted not vs 37% who voted yes. Just thought you'd be interested in how it plays out over there. Swedish dailies are pretty much skewing this as a stupid joke the Norwegians have created (to be expected...Swedes love to laugh at dumb stuff their next door neighbors do).

It's time to act, cut through the "study sessions", "PR scenarios", endless ruminations and act, now. Have faith in your hand-picked General.

KEEPING THE VOTERS IN THE DARK

September 25, 2009 John Hinderaker, Powerline

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have refused to allow the final text of their health care bill to be posted online prior to their vote on it. The Democrats claim it's too technically difficult; in reality, of course, they don't want voters to have an opportunity to see the bill and react to it before it becomes a fait accompli. The Democrats have brought a lack of transparency to Washington that may be unprecedented in our history.

The Examiner quotes Max Baucus, the bill's principal sponsor:

Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., himself admitted that "This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language." Indeed.

The only Democrat to allow voters to get a look at the bill was Blanche Lincoln. No surprise there: she is up for re-election in 2010, and scoring poorly in the polls.

Missile Defense and the (Old) New The Russian Empire

A must read.

From Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired), with a footnote from Mike and an introduction of a companion piece by Dr. Wayne Downing.

All,

Another contrarian view to make you think:

To try to figure out the ramifications of the recent abandonment of our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic, it may be worth pointing out that you could learn more about modern Eastern European history by reading up on what was happening in 1839 or 1909 or even 1929 than by looking back to 1999 or 1989.

You may also like to read up on Russian-Persian history and skip all the cold war Soviet-Iran stuff - too politicized to be of much value.

The so-so news is that we have a decade or so reestablish the defenses in Eastern Europe. The bad news is that we have helped to potentially destabilize the region if we are seen by the Russian Empire to be passively accepting a new and politically correct version of the "iron curtain."

Let there be no doubt about the goal of the Russian Empire, they want suzerianty over Eastern Europe. They will achieve this goal through a campaign launched along three simultaneous lines of operation: political, economic, and through their military.

They would prefer to achieve it through economic and political warfare alone but Putin knows that none of these states will willingly knuckle under to the Kremlin unless the military threat is real.

Now I am not (yet) talking about a Russian military move against any state in Eastern Europe. That is too crude even for Putin as he prefers to limit that option for Central Asia and the Caucasus for now.

No, the military threat I am referring to is from Iran. It is in the strategic interests of the Russian Empire to have Iran armed with medium range ballistic missiles topped with nuclear warheads.

At that point Russia will make Eastern Europe an offer they cannot refuse: Accept Russian hegemony and protection or face political isolation and economic ruin, all the while living under the constant fear of a nuclear attack by Iran. At least you can forget about Israel as a problem.

And how about the latest "good" news being foisted by the US media that Russia announced it will NOT deploy missiles near Poland?

What the heck does that mean? Let me see if I can try to get this: If we agree not to deploy DEFENSIVE missiles in order to protect Poland from missile attacks by aggressor rogue states such as Iran then Russia agrees to cancel the deployment of its OFFENSIVE missiles intended to attack peaceful Poland?

That gives Realpolitik quid-pro-quo a whole new meaning because at the end of the day Poland is left defenseless. Hey, with friends like the United States, who needs enemies? Putin is playing the US like a bunch of amateur hayseeds.

Perhaps wars in Europe are not so much a thing of the past as we once thought.

Semper Fi,

Mike

Part 2 (Col. Walker)

All, A short note from Dr. Downing, Ph.D, on the situation in Eastern Europe. It is as subtly brilliant as it is succinct. By the way, when I was in Iraq the Poles still had the heart of lions in combat. The overwhelming majority had their hands tied by an all too common Coalition "domestic appeasement" government which would brook no casualties. Make no assessment as to the fighting spirit of the Poles based upon that constraint. The Polish special forces and paratroopers are as "tough gunslingers" as you could hope to have on your flank in combat. They are every inch the same steely-eyed warriors who crossed the Rhine under deadly Nazi fire to help the Brit "Paras" at Arnhem in September 1944. Semper Fi, Mike Part 3 (Dr. Downing) Hi Mike, An interesting missive on the recent decision to drop the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is my take on the situation based on my understanding of the historical realties of this part of Europe. There were three conflicts that dominated world affairs throughout the 20th century and all had their origins in Eastern Europe. These are the Great War of 1914-1918, World War II 1939-1945 and the Cold War 1945-1991. What dominates my thinking is the central role of Russia in all three of these contests. Historians call World War I (or the Great War) the graveyard of empires. German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian Empires collapsed as a result of this war or so the conventional thinking goes. The Russians were withdrawn from the war 8 months before the war ended by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March, 1918. Since the Russians were not around for the finish their new czar and his boyars (Lenin, Trotsky and the like) were allowed to consolidate their grip on the country they had seized the previous October from the weak Provisional Government that had succeeded the Romanovs. Wrapped in Marxist-Leninist propaganda the old Russian Empire suffered a grievous Civil War but the communists emerged triumphant and under Stalin the newly named USSR quickly adopted the old imperialist ideas of the czars. Faced with a newly rearmed and reinvigorated Germany in 1939 Stalin moved to reacquire much of Poland and the three Baltic republics after having seized the Finnish border regions the previous winter. Only Russian complicity allowed Hitler to crush Poland from the west while Stalin's Russians seized the eastern third of Poland for themselves. Sounds like recreating the Russian Empire to me. After having been betrayed by Hitler in 1941, the Russians bore the brunt of Germany's military onslaught for most of the rest of the war. There was almost no cooperation with the western Allies throughout the war. Stalin urged his troops to fight for holy mother Russia, not communism. As the war was reaching its conclusion Stalin seized another opportunity at Yalta to seize all of eastern Europe and thoroughly communize the nations his forces had overrun and seized from the Germans. I'm sure that eastern Europeans have not forgotten any of this. The betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich by France and Great Britain, the refusal of the democratic nations of the world to assist the Spanish republic during Spain's civil war would cause the (now) democratic nations of eastern Europe to doubt the commitment of western democracies to their defense. What other conclusion is possible? FDR sold out Poland and the eastern Europeans at Yalta in 1945. The Russians saw this weakness and took full advantage of it. The British and French abandoned the Czechs in 1938 and allow Hitler to absorb what was left in 1939. No democratic power lifted a finger. When Czar Nicholas II promulgated his absurd policy of "Pan-Slavism" in the decade before World War I the allies of Russia (the democratic nations of France and Great Britain) did nothing to restrain the dangerous policy of the ally they were bound to defend if attacked. If you were a Pole or a Czech and remembered this rather sordid past what would you expect from the successor to the Triple Entente, now known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? When has any nation marched to the defense of eastern European democracies prior to the commencement of hostilities? Worse yet, what will conclusion will the democratic government of Ukraine draw from this? Will they drop their prospective membership in NATO? Why shouldn't they when they know better than anyone the character of the Russian regime and its ex-KGB chief who is now Russia's prime minister and is still president in all but name only? My final point is to ask why would the Obama Administration renege on its promise to deploy the defensive missile shield in Poland and its radar network in the Czech Republic? As Secretary of State Clinton once stated was he "hitting the reset button on our relationship with Russia" or was he was cravenly abandoning (yet again) the democracies we are also treaty bound to defend? Or, and this is even more disconcerting, was he courting favor in Iran, a rogue state that is built on anti-Americanism and hostility to us, our interests and our friends, especially Israel? Will this decision encourage Iranian adventurism? What will the Netanyahu government do in the face of a newly recalcitrant Iranian regime of Islamic fanatics? Does this make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities more or less likely? What will Obama do to support Israel if the Israelis feel they must strike first rather than absorb an Iranian nuclear, chemical or biological attack? Why would any American administration send such a message to the world's number one supporter of Islamic terrorism? The reversal of our commitment to defend eastern Europe is just another form of appeasement. It didn't work at Munich in 1938, it didn't work at Yalta in 1945 and I can only shudder at what may happen in 2009. Turning the defense of the democratic world over to a man with absolutely no experience or credibility in either foreign policy or national security affairs only invites our enemies to become even bolder than they have been thus far. It seems the slogan "Yes We Can" now means "No We Won't." Just some ramblings on a September afternoon. Wayne D.

Obama and the Sunday Talkies [Benjamin Zycher]

I see that President Obama is going to be featured on four or five (!) of the Sunday talk shows this weekend. It is simply unbelievable to me that none of the political experts in the White House has told or convinced the president that more yakking on his part on health care or anything else would be counterproductive, and that this is the time for him to sit back and be presidential, while the crass politicians in Congress fight things out.

But . . . no. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, ACORN's gotta engage in fraud, and Obama's gotta talk. It's really that simple; and it is amazing, given how little this guy actually knows about economics, about foreign affairs, about, well, just about anything. This reminds me of a footnote, minor but revealing, from the 2004 Democratic National Convention, at which Obama was the keynote speaker. His rhetoric, as usual, was as empty as a dry well, even as it drew the crowd to its feet time and again. Obama was reported, after the speech and the thunderous reception that it received, to have said to someone, "You know, I can play in this league."

And so there we have it: Obama really believes at his core that empty rhetoric is the same as substance and judgement. I have to believe that it was then that he began to view himself as presidential timber. A small bit of vanity for a man; a giant looming danger for America and the cause of liberty.

— Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

AMERICANS REPUDIATE DEMOCRATS' HATEFUL STRATEGY

September 16, 2009 Posted by John Hinderaker, Powerline

As I've noted several times in recent days, the Democrats' strategy of trying to pass Obamacare by smearing its opponents as "racists" rather than by debating the plan's alleged benefits would be politically inept, even if it were not immoral. Confirmation comes from today's Rasmussen survey, which finds that only 12 percent of Americans agree with the Democrats' claim that "most opponents of President Obama's health care reform plan are racist." Even among Democrats, that absurd view is not widely held.

In that 12 percent, we have identified the hard core of President Obama's support--those who, if the Obama administration said the moon is made of green cheese, would believe it. Or pretend to, anyway. We can call these people the Andrew Sullivan wing of the Democratic Party. Fortunately, that group is very small. Watch for it to dwindle further as the months go by.

CNN Making it up as usual...

September 13, 2009 Posted by Paul at 10:51 AM

(Paul Mirengoff, Powerlineblog.com )

Yesterday, CNN reported that at the Tea Party protest in Washington DC, Nazi imagery and a poster of President Obama as an African witch doctor were popular images. A friend and former law firm colleague who spent hours at the protest says this isn't true. He tells me: "I saw a couple of signs out of thousands that said 'Hitler gave good speeches too' and a few of the Obama zombie like images that have been around the internet." But CNN is "simply making [it] up" when it claims that Nazi imagery and a post of Obama as a witch doctor were popular images at the protest.

Here is the rest of my friend's report:

It was a very civil crowd, and a very large one. We probably talked with 100 people, plus or minus. From all over the country. I recall talking with folks from California, Oregon, Montana, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, and New Jersey, not to mention assorted "locals" from Virginia, Maryland, and DC.

There were many, many signs, and I'd say that 95% + were hand made. The slogans ran the gamut, but most were on the general theme of spending and government intervention is out of control, we can't afford it, we're scared by where Obama is trying to take the country, and the like. Certainly, there were also signs against abortion, for gun ownership, and assorted signs about support for the military (we didn't fight WW2 for "socialism"), but the proportion on the issue of big government out of control was very high, on the order of 90% or close to it I'd venture.

It was interesting talking with the wide variety of people there. Quite a few came as part of groups, but we encountered more who had come on their own -- driving from California or Michigan or Texas, not to mention closer by. There were no production line signs or masses of folks in identical tee shirts. And we found that the people we met were generally well educated and articulate, and they had been paying attention to the issues. They weren't just there to shout slogans (although if prompted by speakers many of them would from time to time). They cared deeply about what they perceive as a sudden and dramatic lurch to the far left, an across the board and very aggressive move by the administration to seize and centralize more power than ever before in Washington and to make Americans more dependent than ever before on the federal government. It was clear many there had been very concerned about spending under Bush, and were now alarmed all the more.

Quite a few of the signs were about health care, and "reading the bill." Several folks remarked -- and a few signs hit this point -- how incensed they were that their elected representatives had not bothered to read the legislation, and were shown to be flat wrong in their general statements about it when read passages of the actual bill in town hall meetings. These folks were watching, and it's easy to see why so many Senators and Representatives chose to duck instead of engaging the issues with their constituents.

One other phenomenon: Joe Wilson was a hero today. Not I think, that the crowd generally approved of intemperate outbursts (I don't, and Wilson himself said the same in apologizing for his shout), but there is clearly very widespread sentiment to the effect that the President and his administration have not been candid with the public, especially about the health care legislation. So, there were numerous "thank you Joe Wilson" signs.

It should not be necessary to say this, but given a particularly partisan segment I just watched on CNN, I will: There was not a trace of "race" in all of this. It was all about the substantive issues. And, although the race card is now shamefully being played more and more aggressively by many speaking for the administration, it's ludicrous when you think about it. Would people be less concerned if Hillary were in office and moving forcefully to take over the health care industry even before the auto and financial sectors are fully digested? Or, marching on DC to protest if a Michael Steele sort were in the oval office implementing conservative policies? Of course not.

I'm very glad we went. We did not return thinking naively that these "tea parties" will lead to a sea change in the balance of political power, but it is heartening to see that many Americans are watching and willing to say out loud that they do not like what they see. Many remarked that the 2010 elections will be very important. We consistently advised people they had better start working for their candidates right now, and hope that the "ground game" of the opposition will be a lot better than it was in the lackluster McCain campaign. (Also, many signs reflected concern about and disdain for ACORN, which is hardly surprising given this week's news about that organization's characteristics.)

Obama, the Mortal

By Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post, Friday, September 4, 2009

What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?

The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?

But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress. Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.

In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal. This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent. Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.

Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt. Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.

Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington. Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob -- misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist. All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest -- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors -- in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.

"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us. If only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.

Things got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president -- trust. You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits -- and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.

After a disastrous summer -- mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -- Obama is in trouble.

Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.

But what has occurred -- irreversibly -- is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.

For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others. And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform -- and his own standing -- with yet another prime-time speech.

But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises -- mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.

Charles Krauthammer

A history lesson.... from Mike Walker

All, Just so we do not lose sight of dynamics that led to this war here is a bit of a contrarian view. On this date seventy years ago approximately 60 Nazi divisions stormed across the border of Poland. They did so with the assurance of the Communist regime in Russia who had signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazi's a few weeks earlier. What has never been consistently reported were secret sections of the pact in which the Nazi's were to be given a free hand in taking western and most of central Poland and the Communist Russians were to be given eastern Poland as well as the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Thus on 17 September 1939 about 33 Communist Russian divisions reinforced the 60 Nazi divisions by attacking Poland in the east in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet pact. This Soviet treachery has always been downplayed in West. During the war it was brushed aside as by 1941, the year the United States entered the conflict, the Communists and the Nazis were at war with each other making the Soviets our de facto ally. After the war the truth of the events in the Summer of 1939 were drowned out in Cold War rhetoric. Yet, with both those events now in the past, it can be said with a great degree of certainly that had Communist Russia not allied themselves politically and militarily with the Nazis in 1939, a war in Europe would never have begun seventy years ago today. The point is that Hitler could not have done it on his own contrary to what many believe. He needed the support of Russia before he could engulf the world in war. Perhaps it is tragically just that the two nations responsible for the war in Europe suffered the greatest for their villany. Semper Fi, Mike