http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/20/believers_in_obama

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous
is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a
friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They
have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the
facts, they resent being told the facts.

An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was
voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut
him short: "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in
battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful
to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of
civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about
candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of
generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they
like his words or style.

Of the four people running for President and Vice President on the
Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is
the one leading in the polls-- Barack Obama.

Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you
what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or
financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what
he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying
nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has
supplied with other weapons.

The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are
going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change."

But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours,
where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.

In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is
today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians
than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing
like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."

That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars'
despotism look like child's play. The Communists killed more people in
one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the
millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.

Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran were similarly
replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even
worse than what went before

Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will
make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as
inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th century
leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their
followers or their countries into utter disasters.

These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in
Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.

What specifics do we know about Barack Obama's track record that might
give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is
elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons
on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding
physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to
abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on
Fannie Mae-- and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign
contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his
campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin
Raines.

Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington"
that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of
"change."

The public has been told very little about what this man with the
wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make
us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to. For the true
believers-- which includes many in the media-- it is just a question
of whether you like him or not.