A Question of Judgment

It is no secret that Barack Obama lacks the resumé to occupy the Oval Office, but his supporters would have us believe that his experience matters far less than his judgment.

So the discerning abilities of the candidate are to be the measure of the man. Let us not forget that we are being asked to entrust what is arguably the most important, powerful office in the world to the winner of this election. This is not a beauty contest or an American Idol competition. Rather we will, through our votes, empower one individual with the representative voices of three hundred million, and entrust to him a large role in the course of each of those lives, the country, and, in a very real sense, the world. If his judgment is to be the criteria upon which we base our decision, it is entirely reasonable for us to demand that his judgment be impeccable - above critism.

Sometime between 1988 and 1991, Michelle Robinson, then an associate at the Chicago law firm Sidley and Austin, was assigned to mentor a new summer associate, Barack Obama. Subsequent events indicate that their professional relationship blossomed into much more than a summer assignment, as the two were married in October, 1992.

Also employed by Sidley and Austin was Bernadine Dohrn, wife of one William Ayers, both former members of the Weather Underground, a radical left organization responsible for riots, bombings and other acts of uncivil disobediance 1960's and early 1970's. While the exact sequence of events can be known only to the involved parties, it seems reasonable to presume that this business connection was the beginning of a long association between the Obamas and the Ayers.

Bill Ayers, in an article published as recently as, ironically, September 11, 2001, in the New York Times, regrets that he and his associates "didn't do enough" to accomplish their stated goals: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." One could reasonably argue that befriending such an individual evidenced questionable judgment.

Beginning in 1995, Barack Obama served as the first director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $49.2 million initiative intended to improve the quality of education in Chicago's public school system. The Challenge, co-founded by Bill Ayers, was completely unsuccessful in its efforts, showing absolutely no measurable improvement in any aspect of involved students' lives. There is no certain way to determine how closely this failure was linked to the efforts, or judgment, of the initiative's director, but it is certain that his friendship with the unrepentent Ayers continued.

Between the years of 1999 and 2002, Obama, again working with Ayers, served as a director of The Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit group which professes to help the disadvantaged. Among the downtrodden the fund found worthy of assistance was the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago Palestinian organization with close ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Woods Fund provided two grants, totalling $75,000, to the AAAN. Surely this is not an example of the discernment Obama's supporters would have us include in our assessment of the candidate?

Ayers and Dohrn proved to be of still more assistance to the young Obama when he first ventured into the world of elected politics, hosting a coming-out party in the mid-1990's to launch his campaign for the Illinois Congress.

At the age of 26, Barack Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he would worship for the next twenty years, speak his marital vows and baptize his children. Styles of worship vary greatly in this country, but the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's brand of theology is far removed from what most of our citizens would label "mainstream." Exciting for the parishioners, perhaps, but hardly acceptable for the more modest majority of the population, particularly the strong racist and anti-American overtones that cannot be ignored. Mr. Obama called Wright his "spiritual mentor." Is Barack a racist? Anti-American? Or did he merely lack the judgment to distance himself from a brand of faith that would obviously offend the vast majority of those he hoped to govern? We cannot know with certainty, but either option fails the shrewdness test.

Just last month, Obama went on a whirlwind world tour, culminating in a speech given before an enormous crowd (assembled for a concert, not his speech, for the record). His preferred venue, the Brandenburg Gate, was deemed inappropriate (by those with better judgment than the candidate?), and he was forced to settle for second best, the Berlin Victory Column. This enormous, phallic-shaped monument was moved to its present location in 1939 by the Nazis, a fact which might give a discriminating candidate pause, but did not dissuade Obama. He addressed the crowd with his usual global focus, calling himself a citizen of the world, and including internationally-populist, anti-American rhetoric: "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." The wise man might think that this would not be the best way to win friends or influence the American people.

Following this grand tour, Obama was branded a celebrity and "The One" by his political opponents, and his poll numbers began to take a hit. Using his best judgment, he chose to fight this attack by moving his nomination acceptance speech from the convention hall which held a measly 20,000-plus people to the home of the Denver Broncos - capable of seating 75,000-plus. In a further show of his sapience, he erected a stage from which to deliver his next great diatribe - a stage bearing a striking resemblance to a Greek temple, worthy of the Gods. Surely everyone would see that he was just like them, just a very smart, very exceptional, very popular, very nuanced example of the species homo sapiens.

Of course, that was not the response to his grandiose idea - this was:

The errors in judgment cited here are just a few of the more blatant lapses exhibited by the man who would be President. There are many more, some less serious, others every bit as bad. His obvious willingness to blame America first for most of the problems of the world is deeply troubling, as is his complete lack of understanding of the finer points of foreign policy. Statements regarding renegotiation of NAFTA, an undivided Jerusalem, the need for both Georgia and Russia to step back from agression when Russia invaded its small, democratic neighbor all give us a great deal of insight into the judgment of this man. And to find it sorely lacking.

With the ever-increasing possibility of a reignited Cold War, can we take the chance of electing a Commander In Chief who has openly stated that one of his primary goals is to unilaterally rid the United States of nuclear weapons as a gesture of good will?

Are we as arrogant as the candidate himself? Do we belive that words, just words, can dissuade Russia from conquering its neighbors? Or that rhetoric and understanding can change Iran's mission to eliminate Israel with its "peaceful" nuclear program?

If the world is not willing to allow us to drive our SUV's, why should they embrace our unwillingness to despoil our own pristeen offshore areas with oil rigs?

And, closer to home, if he is truly "one of us," why can he not understand that we work hard for our wages, and, while willing to finance a military to protect our land, homes and families, we object strenuously to having those wages confiscated and distributed to the less industrious in the name of what his judgment leads him to believe is "justice" and "fairness?"

No resumé, no documented instances of showing good judgment. Nothing except hubris and a massively over-inflated ego. The United States simply cannot afford Barack Obama - he's just an empty toga.

Screaming Hypocrisy

Barack Obama believes that Americans should conduct ourselves not as we wish, or can afford, but as other nations would dictate, as evidenced by the following recent statement:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

With increasing regularity, liberals assert that Americans must conform to the wishes of the world. We are hated, according to liberal doctrine, because of our failure to go along to get along. To paraphrase Obama, we are 3% of the global population consuming 25% of the world's resources. For the record, both of those percentages are inacurate - we comprise a larger percentage of the world population and consume a smaller percentage of the resources - but that's a topic for another day. The point is, we are selfish and greedy, the bully in the coatroom, bent on keeping the little guys down to feed our own voracious appetites. This they condemn emphatically.

Yet, consider their stance on the current energy crisis. We do drive our SUV's and heat and cool our homes, much to their dismay, and we have a vital and thriving economy which demands enormous amounts of energy. The primary source of that energy is oil, and far and away the bulk of the oil that drives our economy is imported from other nations. Global demand for oil is dramatically rising (apparently we aren't quite as efficient at oppressing the other guys as they would have us believe, since the little guys are also consuming vast amounts of energy to drive their own vital and thriving economies), and the increased demand is resulting, naturally, in increased costs. The only realistic relief for this dilemma is to dramatically increase the supply of oil that is available.

We are sitting on oil reserves of unimaginable size. Offshore, in ANWR, the Dakotas, shale oil...the list is long. Yet, we aren't accessing this oil. We have the technology. We have the means. We certainly have the desire. Still, billions of barrels of this desperately needed resource lie untapped beneath our land and seas. Why? Because we don't want to destroy even a few acres of our precious, pristine environment. Because we can't possibly consider risking a minor inconvenience to wildlife by using a tiny fraction of an arctic wasteland to extract that oil. Because we wouldn't dream of risking an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (although China is drilling in our Gulf). There are no better reasons than these. The liberals in Congress have blocked, time and again, efforts to open up our own reserves, to improve our refining capability, to generate more of our energy through nuclear power plants (by far the cleanest energy source known to man).

Consider for a moment how the rest of the world must see this reluctance to despoil our precious lands. We care not at all if their lands are spoiled. We simply expect them to provide what we need to survive as a nation without so much as a thought of the environmental consequences they may be suffering. Perhaps the reality is that they aren't suffering any environmental consequences - perhaps, as would be the case in ANWR and 200 miles off the Florida coast, their oil fields are not harming their lands. Perhaps the considerable slice of our Gross Domestic Product that finds its way to their coffers is more than adequate compensation for any tiny inconvenience a few acres of oil wells here and there pose. How ridiculous we must seem; how incredibly hypocritical, self-centered and short-sighted.

Such ignorance will be the downfall of our nation. At least, when we are facing economic destruction, we will have the comfort of knowing that the frozen tundra that is ANWR remains as barren, and pristine, as ever.