Rahm Emanuel Still Makes Nancy Pelosi Nervous

Pelosi is in an enviable position, the most powerful Democrat in Congress at a time of national ascendancy for her party, but she seems a little nervous.

I have been getting e-mails from people trying to solicit my support for various candidates to lead the RNC.  Funny thing is that I don’t get a vote.  As vice chair of the party, I have no say whatsoever.  Each state has three slots on the Republican National Committee.  They are filled by the state chair (Stan Lockhart), the national committeeman (Bruce Hough) and the national committeewoman (Enid Greene). 

The only candidate I have met personally is Michael Steele.  He is the former Lt. Gov. of Maryland, and is very impressive.  He ran for the U.S. Senate two years ago and lost.   When I was in New York for the national convention in 2004, Michael Steele came to our hotel and spoke to the Utah delegation.  I have been a fan ever since. 

Todd Weiler

I grew up in Illinois, in a subarb of Chicago.  I hear people (mostly Democrats) complaining about how “corrupt” politicians are in Utah.  Whatever.  If you want to see corruption, look at states like Illinois and New Jersey.   What critics decry as “corruption” in Utah wouldn’t even register as a blip on the radar in some other states. 

Todd Weiler

I don’t think Obama’s team is managing the Blagovich scandal very smoothly.  After all, it appears they did nothing wrong or illegal.  If that is the case, then why all of the secrecy?  Today, the Chicago Tribune reported what everyone already suspected: that Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, gave a list of approved names to the Illinois governor. 

See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-obama13dec13,0,3359611.story

Big deal.  I would have been shocked if that didn’t happen.  There is no evidence that Emanuel (or anyone else connected to Obama) engaged in any deal making.

I had been impressed with Obama since the election, but he has clearly botched his handling of this crisis.   If his team doesn’t learn from their mistakes, it may be a very long four years for his administration. 

Todd Weiler

From http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=6424985&page=1

Obama addressed the scandal over his Senate seat Tuesday afternoon, saying, “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.” But Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod told a Chicago affiliate of Fox News that Obama had in fact spoken to Blagojevich about his empty Senate seat.

“I know he’s talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them,” Axelrod said in the Nov. 23 interview.

The controversy continued Tuesday evening, when Axelrod issued a statement retracting his statement. “I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject,” said Axelrod.

“I know he’s talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them,” Axelrod said in the Nov. 23 interview.

The controversy continued Tuesday evening, when Axelrod issued a statement retracting his statement. “I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject,” said Axelrod.

The president-elect, who was speaking to reporters following a meeting with Al Gore about green energy and climate change, also said, “Obviously, like the rest of the people of Illinois, I am saddened and sobered by news that came out of the U.S. Attorney’s office today, but as this is an ongoing investigation into the governor, I don’t think it’d be appropriate for me to comment at this time.” The president-elect, who was speaking to reporters following a meeting with Al Gore about green energy and climate change, also said, “Obviously, like the rest of the people of Illinois, I am saddened and sobered by news that came out of the U.S. Attorney’s office today, but as this is an ongoing investigation into the governor, I don’t think it’d be appropriate for me to comment at this time.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/the_rising_jon_huntsman_jr.html

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman could be rivals for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination

In politics, there is nothing as appealing as the Next Big Thing.

The Next Big Thing is that politician who — for reasons both tangible and intangible — is seen as a player on the national stage, someone we all will hear from in the not-too-distant future.Four years ago, Barack Obama had that aura. Today he is in the midst of preparing to become the 44th president of the United States.

Not every rising star fulfills his or her potential in quite the way Obama has but many of them wind up influencing the debate even if they come up short — former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards jumps to mind in that realm.

With that in mind, The Fix is launching a new regular feature that we are calling The Rising (with obvious apologies to the Boss). In The Rising, we aim to provide the need-to-know information about the next set of party leaders, presidential candidates and others elected officials who will help shape the political landscape in the next four years or so.

We kick off our newest feature in Utah — where else? — with a look at Beehive State Gov. Jon Huntsman.

On paper, Huntsman doesn’t seem like anyone worth keeping an eye on. The son of a billionaire businessman and philanthropist, Huntsman served in several positions within the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before running successfully for governor in ruby-red Utah in 2004 and cruising to reelection last month with 70 percent of the vote.

But, dig only slightly deeper and Huntsman’s appeal begins to become apparent. He is an expert on China and speaks Mandarin Chinese fluently. He is far more progressive on the environment than many within his party. He has built a record of economic recovery and growth during his first four years in office at which even Democrats marvel. And, most importantly (and interestingly), he sees himself as a force for bipartisanship in Utah.

“People work with people,” said Huntsman during an interview last month with The Fix. “Most Americans are fed up with the idea that partisanship has stood in the way of progress.”

As evidence of his across-the-aisle style, Huntsman points out that he appointed Scott Matheson, the Democrat who ran against him in 2004, to head up an independent commission investigating the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse in 2007.

Huntsman is openly critical of the recent Republican leadership, including the campaign run by Arizona Sen. John McCain, who he endorsed early in the primary season. (Huntsman’s father was an active supporter of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.)

Of the 2008 McCain campaign, Huntsman said: “The big ideas didn’t come forward.” He added that “people have to have to something they can vote on, they can digest” and McCain never gave them that information.

Huntsman is even more critical of the Bush Administration which, he suggests, chose narrow partisanship rather than “preeminence” around a few big ideas — a decision that cost the party control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.

“Right now we are devoid of ideas,” said Huntsman. “We don’t have the big thing, we don’t have the organizing principle.”

Asked about the war on terrorism, around which Bush has built his presidency, Huntsman said that while it should be part of our overall national security, it can’t be an organizing principle…it’s not big enough.”

The Administration’s singular focus on the war in Iraq, he added, has “completely neglected” other parts of the world — notably China and India. “Iraq has taken all of the oxygen out of the room,” Huntsman said.

For all of the change messaging and outsider appeal, Huntsman still has a number of major obstacles to overcome between now and 2012. (He says he has made no decisions about his future but certainly has the look and feel of a future presidential candidate.)

First and foremost is his Mormon faith, which, as we saw with Romney earlier this year, is a major stumbling block for Republican caucus and primary voters. While most voters were loath to say that a candidate’s gender or race made them less likely to support him or her, there was no such hesitation to voicing opposition to a Mormon candidate.

What the 2008 Republican primary proved is that there remains a bloc of base Republican voters — how large a bloc is up for debate — that believes Mormonism to be a cult and simply will not support any candidate who adheres to its tenets.

Huntsman’s second problem is Romney. By all indications, Romney is planning to run again in 2012 and would start the race better known and better financed than Huntsman. A Romney candidacy would also force Huntsman to answer questions about whether the Republican field was big enough for two Mormons — especially given the trepidation cited above toward Mormons from some GOP voters. (An interesting side story: There is a definite rivalry between Huntsman and Romney that will be fascinating to watch play out over the coming few years.)

The third major issue facing Huntsman is his lack of a political team. He said he cut his own ads for his gubernatorial campaigns and isn’t particularly close to any national consultants. Mock D.C.-based consultants if you like but it pays to have people around you who have done it before and know what it takes.

All in all, Huntsman is far more than meets the eye. He’s well worth watching over the next few years as he positions himself for a place on the national stage in 2012.

Most of his PAC’s funds support his ambitions

(CNN) — Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in federal custody on corruption charges, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Illinois.

Both men are expected in U.S. District Court in Chicago later Tuesday.

A news conference is expected at noon ET.

Federal prosecutors say Blagojevich, Harris and others conspired to gain financial benefits in appointing President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate replacement, according to the statement.

“The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering,” U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. “They allege that Blagojevich put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism.”

According to the statement, Blagojevich is alleged to have discussed obtaining:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Let’s hope that all of our concerns were unfounded.  Let’s hope that President-elect Obama can overcome his liberal record and left-learning tendencies and lead from the center.  Although I will not hold my breath, I will hope for the best.

Todd Weiler

From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html#printMode

The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation’s first African-American candidacy would play a big role.

Barbara Kelley

Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw. The real “change” being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of “the past eight years” but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America’s idea of itself.

I don’t agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, “progressive” Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its “social market economy.” Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create “wealth” so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

The political planets are aligned to make this achievable. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, prominent Democrats, European leaders in France and Germany and more U.S. newspaper articles than one can count have said that the crisis proves the need to permanently tame the American “free-market” model. P.O.W. Alan Greenspan is broadcasting confessions. The question is: Are the American people of a mind to throw in the towel on the system that got them here?

This would be a historic shift, one post-Vietnam Democrats have been trying to achieve since their failed fight with Ronald Reagan’s “Cowboy Capitalism.”

Of course Cowboy Capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. They blew out of New England and New York, rolled across the wildernesses of the Central States, pushed across a tough Western frontier and banged into San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaving in their path city after city of vast wealth.

The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple — the pursuit of economic growth. Now China, India and Brazil, embracing high-growth Cowboy Capitalism, are doing what we did, only their cities are bigger.

Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, “Mothers, don’t let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It’s time to spread the wealth around.”

What this implies, undeniably, is that the United States would move away from running with the high GDP, high-growth nations rising today as economic and political powers and move over to retire with the low-growth economies we displaced — old Europe.

As noted in a 2006 World Bank report, spending in Europe on social-protection programs averages 19% of GDP (85% of it on social insurance programs), compared to 9% of GDP in the U.S. The Obama proposals send the U.S. inexorably and permanently toward European levels of social protection. This isn’t an “agenda.” It’s a final temptation.

In partial detail:

Obama’s federalized medical insurance system starts the transition away from private medical care and toward Obama’s endlessly promised “universal health care.” This has always been the sine qua non of planting a true, managed-market economy in the U.S.

Obama’s refundable tax credits are direct cash transfers from the federal government. This would place some 48% of Americans, nearly half, out of the income tax system. More than a tax proposal, this is a deep philosophical shift, an American version of being “on the dole.”

His stated intent to renegotiate free-trade agreements such as Nafta is a philosophical shift. It abandons the tradition of a hyper-competitive America dating back to the Industrial Revolution, toward a protected, domestic workforce, as in Western Europe. The Democratic proposal to eliminate private union votes — “card check” — ensures the spread of a static, Euro-style workforce.

Eliminating the ceiling on payroll taxes changes Social Security from an insurance to a welfare program. Obama’s tax credits requires performing government-identified activities, the essence of a “directed economy.”

All this would transform the animating American idea — away from creation and toward protection.

Many voters — progressive Democrats, the asset-safe rich, academics and college students — regard this as where America should go. They explicitly want America’s great natural energies transferred away from unwieldy economic competition and toward social construction. They want the U.S. to reduce its “footprint” in the world. Monies saved by stepping down from superpower status can be reprogrammed into “investments” (a favorite Obama word) in a vast Euro-style hammock of social protection programs.

One wishes John McCain had been better able to make clear what the truly “historic” meaning of Tuesday’s vote is. Once it’s done, it’s done.

As could be expected, liberals are insisting that there is no meaningful connection between Obama and Rashid Khalidi.  Here are the facts so you can decide:

“In 2000, The Khalidis Held A Fundraiser For Obama’s Unsuccessful Congressional Bid.” (Peter Wallsten, “Allies Of Palestinians See A Friend In Obama,” Los Angeles Times, 4/10/08)

At The 2000 Fundraiser, Khalidi Claimed Obama Called For A More “Evenhanded Approach” To The Palestinian-Israel Conflict. “Both Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fund-raiser and had called for the United States to adopt a more ‘evenhanded approach’ to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.” (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side,” The New York Times, 5/11/08)

“A Local Palestinian Activist Said Obama Attended The Fundraiser And Expressed Sympathy For The Palestinian Cause And Criticism For U.S. Support Of Israel. “In 2000, [Ali] Abunimah [a Hyde Park Palestinian-American activist] recalled, Professor Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian American advocate for a two-state solution and harsh critic of Israel, held a fundraiser in his home for Obama, embarked then on an ultimately unsuccessful bid for the House of Representatives. ‘He came with his wife,’ Abunimah said. ‘That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him. It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. … He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.’” (Larry Cohler-Esses, “Obama Pivots Away From Dovish Past,” The New York Jewish Week, 3/9/07)

Obama Praised Khalidi For A Conversation The Two Shared That Had Been “Consistent Reminders To [Obama] Of [His] Blind Spots And [His] Own Biases.” “A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been ‘consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,’ but around ‘this entire world.’” (Peter Wallsten, “Allies Of Palestinians See A Friend I n Obama,” Los Angeles Times, 4/10/08)

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/obama-and-guns/ 

Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”…

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House….

At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis’ daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago’s large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama’s (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn’t the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)

Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):

Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat’s paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No “settlements” in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.

The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.

SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!

END AID TO ISRAEL!

Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.

But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).