When we recall Barack Obama's idyllic, media-kissed presidential campaign of 2008, we remember how insistent he was that he would be every American's president.  We also recollect that many political pundits minimized his associations with radicals such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright. Everyone admonished us not to judge the candidate by anyone other than himself.  Well, okay.

But, as soon as he was inaugurated, Mr. Obama made a Herculean effort – complete with shady backroom shenanigans – to sell socialized medicine to the citizenry.  This expensive and cumbersome initiative went down in defeat.  The coup de grace was when Massachusetts awarded its United States Senate seat, formerly held by the late Edward Kennedy, to a Republican, who explicitly campaigned against Mr. Obama's radical healthcare plan. The conclusion that the President seems to have drawn from the experience is that he did not communicate his message well to the state's electorate. Has it never occurred to the gentleman that the people in Massachusetts, as well as those in Virginia and New Jersey, understood his message, but roundly rejected it?

I am not going to quibble about what an "ideologue" is.  Most believe that the term refers to a blind partisan who adamantly and inflexibly holds to a particular ideology, or set of beliefs. There's no magic in the definition.  But Obama enthusiasts and sympathizers respond, "He is not an ideologue, but a practical, pragmatic politician."  David Brooks of The New York Times has recently gushed over the "intense pragmatism" of this President.

The two terms, "ideologue" and "pragmatist," are not necessarily disjunctive.  Hitler and Lenin were ideologues, but they were willing to do or to say whatever they needed in order to secure the changes they desired.  Suffice it to say that Barack Obama is fueled by a set of political convictions that burn white-hot within him, and he is willing to smile, dance, grovel, appear on talk shows, or do whatever else he must in order to make his political vision reality.  So is he an "ideologue" or a "pragmatist"?  It's a question that, I think, misses the point.

When Mr. Obama had the Republicans confined in a small box for a year, he did not find a single reason to reach out to and to accommodate them, so he did not.  Instead, he worked with and through leftists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to further his ideological agenda. To manage the Justice Department, the forty-fourth President appointed Eric Holder, who apparently cannot distinguish between a person who steals a loaf of bread in a New York City bodega and a Nigerian terrorist who attempts to blow up 300 passengers on an airplane flying to Detroit.  Both, according to Holder, deserve trials in civilian courts and should have attorneys, if need be, at public expense.

To give himself additional light and inspiration, our President bypassed the advice and consent of Congress and appointed czars to run the government – people like Richard Holbrooke, who would like little more than to strip Americans of their right to bear arms; Ed Montgomery, who as a professor at the University of Maryland contended that United States businesses caused world poverty; Lynn Rosenthal, the radical feminist, who voiced her support of male castration; and Gil Kerlikowske, who advocates the legalization of all drugs.  I guess my favorite czar of all is Gary Samore, a former communist, who seriously espouses the position that this country unilaterally destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a show of good faith.  How brilliantly humanitarian!

Every citizen owes it to himself and to his country to peruse the list of those who comprise Mr. Obama's closest advisors.  Afterward, the person should ask himself a hard question, "What kind of President, living in the terrifying twenty-first century, surrounds himself with a plethora of "Alice in Wonderland" advisors?  Is this an Obamanation or what?

The American people are waking up, but slowly, to a fact that should have been all too evident to them during the 2008 campaign:  Mr. Obama is light years out of the American mainstream.  The citizenry is neither ready nor willing to accept the "fundamental change" for which he and his radical cohorts stand. Consequently, the only way he can lead the people of this nation is either by deceiving them about who he is and what he wants or by moving to the political center.  Neither will be an easy course for him.  Citizens are beginning to capture him in clear focus and to understand that underneath the superficial charm he exudes is a person who is not one of them.  His mystique has largely disappeared and his honeymoon with them over.  Tacking to the right, on the other hand, will devastate his base of support – another disaster for him.  One might conclude from these considerations that Mr. Obama's presidency is finished. This is unfortunate, because the country needs a strong president, but it is not an entirely negative development.

February 1, 2010