King: “My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king,” Obama told Univision in October 2010, when asked why he had yet to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. “I can’t do these things just by myself.” He reiterated that sentiment in a February 2013 interview with Telemundo. “I’m not a king,” he said. President of China: “Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China,” the New York Times reported in March 2011.

Emperor of the United States: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” Obama said during a Google hangout event in February. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

When we first heard Obama's "I am not a dictator," as we noted Friday, it reminded us of Nixon's "I am not a crook." But on further reflection, Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is a more apt comparison. Of course Obama is not attempting to cover up wrongful behavior, but he did answer Yellin's question in a weirdly literal way that was both a deflection and a revelation. It's true, of course, that Obama isn't a dictator. He also seems to point that out a lot, as National Review's Andrew Stiles observes. Last month, for example, he noted that "I'm the president of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States" and called this a "problem" that he has "struggled with throughout my presidency."

It seems Obama wishes he had dictatorial powers. He probably enjoyed that little fantasy of having the Secret Service take his adversaries prisoner.

In an interview last night with NY1, the congressman praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to push through the so-called “nuclear option” to end filibusters on most presidential nominees. But he lamented the fact the work-around could not be used for legislation, suggesting the president turn to the executive orders–like the kind used to end the deportation many people who’d entered the country illegally as children.

While the clash over collective bargaining garnered national attention, Walker has additional accomplishments to highlight. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which opposed Walker's collective bargaining reforms, recently noted, "The governor did balance the budget … he did reduce the structural deficit significantly; he did put a lid on property tax increases; he did give schools and municipalities more control over their budgets than they've had in years." What's more, the reforms pushed by Walker are themselves already having a beneficial effect. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was Walker's opponent in the 2010 election and later attacked his proposals to reform collective bargaining. But with the reforms on the books, Barrett used some of the bill's provisions to help reduce the city's health care bill, saying that the alternative was to cut 300 to 400 city jobs.

Governor Walker was extremely impressive, both in the substance of what he said and the style with which he said it. As for the substance, I'll simply mention that Wisconsin, thanks to Governor Walker, is the only state whose pension plan is 100% funded. Its neighbor Illinois, by contrast, faces the terrifying prospect of a state pension plan that is some 43% funded. Where's the money going to come from?

When Governor Walker assumed office, he faced horrendous deficits, but he declined to raise taxes. Illinois, by contrast, raised personal income taxes by 67% and business taxes by 46%.

Fat lot of good it did them. Business and high net-worth individuals are fleeing the state to more welcoming venues, like Wisconsin.

Governor Walker’s chief accomplishment, though — the great thing he did for the state and the thing that drove the Left nationwide into a frenzy of rage — was facing down the public-sector unions. By now, it is obvious to all who have eyes to see that by so doing, Governor Walker did a big favor not only to the ordinary residents and taxpayers of Wisconsin but also to the unions themselves. Had he not instituted his reforms, many, many union jobs would have been lost.