In yesterday's National Review, Michael Barone compared President Obama to the naive protagonist from Being There:
"Obama is not so much Jimmy Carter 2.0 as the second coming of Chauncey Gardiner... a clueless gardener who is mistaken for a Washington eminence and becomes a presidential adviser." He adds that "Obama seems oddly disengaged, aloof from the hard work of government, hesitant about making choices."
Oddly engaged? Aloof? Hesitant? Is Michael Barone right to describe him this way? Is Obama clueless?
No, Michael Barone is wrong -- big time, as Dick Cheney might say. Barack Obama, unlike Chauncey Gardiner, knows exactly what he is doing -- destroying the country in order to install a new regime. The truly clueless are those don't see it.
A reader agrees with my assessment:
"Mr. Zak has it exactly right. Obama is doing all that he can to destroy American greatness. There is nothing bumbling about it except the facade. A decade from now we conservatives will look at the fruits of BHO's appointments, executive orders and those laws which are not overturned, and we will ask 'How could we have been so clueless?'"
Another reader said that Obama is "a character out of a novel that George Orwell did not live to write."
As a student of history, I understood immediately who and what Barack Obama was even before he finished his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. A certain article has been atop my Grand Old Partisan blog for nearly a year. The title is Obama the Destroyer.
So, ask yourself, if Barack Obama were not trying to destroy the United States of America, what would he being doing differently?
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. He is also the author of the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics.

Comments