Economic Woes Hit Student Shoppers

- Tim Robertson

Please, Iran, don't build nukes, pretty please

Peter Beinart (left) said he believes in global cooperation, and that America shouldn't shun any country. Beinart appeared at a Hofstra University panel discussion on American foreign policy on Tuesday.

Hofstra hosted a trio of foreign policy experts Tuesday afternoon as part of their Educate 08 progam, two of whom expressed outright support for Barack Obama. The third served in the Clinton adminstration. (Way to stay balanced, Hofstra.)

The most problems arose out of what Peter Beinart said regarding America's role in a globalized soceity. Beinart is a Washington Post columnist along with a slew of other credentials, but to say that we need to have a cooperative relationship with essentially any country, and that this is not an "us vs. them" world, is an agrument with plenty of holes.

As he mentioned, conservatives believe that this is an "us vs. them" world and America's foreign policy should reflect that. He pointed out issues that transcend that relationship to prove his, and Obama's, views on a cooperative world. Yes, there are challenges the world can face together: poverty, AIDS, food shortages, global warming, but nuclear prolifiration? Pardon me if I don't think that every country isn't looking out for their own interests when they decide/decided to build nuclear weapons, including this country.

Tackling this issue, in reference to Iran, India, Japan and North Korea, is a difficult one. The U.S. currently backs India and Japan in their pursuit toward constructing a nuclear weapon, but not t the other two. This is an "us vs. them" strategy. But if the U.S. shifted and allowed any country to build a nuclear weapon, and two of those countries would aim those weapons at two of our allies -- South Korea and Israel -- how can we support that?

This cooperative global order that Beinart and Obama have talked about is already out there. It's called the United Nations. The U.N. tackles challenges of AIDS, food and poverty. It tries to stop countries from invading soveriegn, democratic nations, but that hasn't worked so well. (See: Russia).

Beinart and Obama act like this is a new idea. It's not. Wilson and the League of Nations established the idea, and FDR/Truman followed suit. Twice now liberals have attempted to establish a world order that would bring peace, twice now its failed to do so. In America, "Us vs. them" has brought peace most of the time, and war when neccessary. Should we talk to Sudan's leaders about killing millions? Should we have talked with Hitler?

Dug up Biden Quote of the Day: “[Saddam's] a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.” -- 2002

- Tim Robertson

WASH. POST SHOCKER: First Dude and Sarah Palin BOTH Work!

From Monday's Washington Post: Even as Sarah Palin's popularity ratings soar, locals harbor some concerns about the pressures of the couple's lifestyle and Todd Palin's quasi-official status.

Tom Whitstine, a fellow Wasilla conservative, snowmobiler and North Slope oilman, is critical of the Palins. "How he works and his exact position with the administration is pretty gray," he said. "It's not any great secret, but where is the accountability?"

Whitstine also worries about the Palin children. "If Sarah's running the state and Todd's off conducting state business, who's looking after the children?" he said.

Now hold on a minute. The Post didn't include the other side approving Todd Palin's involvement, so one can guess where they lie on the issue. However, lets look across the aisle. Did the U.S. vote for Hillary in 1992? Then why was she so heavily involved in day-to-day operations (like she claimed in her presidential run)? What about Mrs. FDR or Jackie-O and their well-documented transformation of the First Spouse position into a quasi-cabinet level spot? I can't tell in the Post is going after Todd Palin's role as "First Dude" because he is a man or because he is a Republican.

To the final quote in the excerpt, what happens when two parents in an American family work? What on earth do they do? Daycare? A babysitter? Send them to the community pool? I'm sure like the rest of America, they find a way to do it.

Dug up Biden Quote of the Day: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.” -- October 2007

- Tim Robertson

The Mix Predix

Predictions for the coming week in politics: Obama campaign announces Palin's a celebrity, too. The VP nominee drew 60,000 Floridians Sunday to an event where she stressed McCain's readiness to lead in the economic downturn.

Now, when the VP nominee brings 60,000 to a campaign event (roughly three-fourths of the Democratic Convention audience) on a random Sunday, what does that say about the opposition? While Obama's group may be louder, but I don't know if it's larger.

Oh, wait, we're not supposed to compare a no. 1 to a no. 2. Well, I'm sorry, but trying to compare Palin's numbers to Biden's is like pitting the British military against schoolchildren (and history shows the Brits won that battle many times over), and I don't think Biden had 60,000 at the fish fry he went to in Virginia on Saturday.

- Tim Robertson

History says no. 44 won't have any luck

I wonder what happened in American presidential politics that made it so difficult to elect a president. For the third consecutive election it's a toss-up entering the debates. There is no clear favorite as both John McCain and Barack Obama are virtually tied according to the aggregation of several polls.

Prior to the 2000 election, no race even comes close to this one or the previous two since Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford by 1.7 million votes. Clinton won both by an average of 6.5 million, and Reagan won his two by an average of 12.5 million votes.

In going back decades and looking at popular vote totals, then comparing it to the eras of the election, the last time we had three consecutive tight elections was the 1960s. Kennedy by 100,000 over "Criminal" Nixon in 1960, and "Tricky Dick" Nixon won in 1968 by 500,000 votes. What does that say about this decade? Should we worry that the tumultuous and domestic unrest that highlighted the 60s will return in some fashion here? Will the partisan divide cause the "melting pot" to boil over?

While that may be a bit excessive, history doesn't bode well for either McCain or Obama. Narrow winners never have a very successful time in office. Kennedy faced serious challenges in the Cuban Missile Crisis, escalated the Vietnam War and mishandled the Bay of Pigs. Oh, and he died. Nixon... Watergate (period). Carter suffered in office due to a struggling economy, a growing federal government and the Iranian hostage crisis. W. Bush was dealt tough cards with Sept. 11, but then entered two wars, went through at least two economic "downturns" (including the current one) and became a lame duck with lamer approval ratings. All four presidents didn't have strong wins at the polls in elections, and no one had successful presidencies.

Only 44 days to go in an almost certain no-win situation. Good luck men.

Dug up Biden Quote of the Day: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

- Tim Robertson

From the Department of Laugh out Loud

Democracy Now! reporter, Amy Goodman, suggested yesterday evening at an event at Hofstra University that everyone in the world, no matter their citizenship should vote in our presidential election. Oh great! First the Supreme Court thinks terrorists are citizens and deserve the same rights as citizens, and now Amy Bleeding Heart wants 5.5 billion people outside the border to have the same rights!

I ask, what did they (either the Gitmo boys or the rest of the world) do to DESERVE American rights without American citizenship. These two theories come from the same side of the aisle as the idea that McCain can't run for office because he was born on a military base in a foreign country while his father served in the military. Notice to the Bleeding Hearts: that's what happens when you decide to fight for this country. Sometimes your children aren't born inside the U.S. border. But I digress.

Now let us suppose the higher-ups in government approved of the Goodman Doctrine and let all of the world vote for our president. Does that mean we get to vote for theirs?! Wait a minute, this could be fun! Since our country is more conservative than most of Europe and less prone to dictatorships, we could handle this, and get everyone we want into office. This is great! We'll keep Sarko around in France, he's done a good job handling Putin, who would have to go. Along with President A... of Iran, Chavez, mini Castro, Hu Jintao, and perhaps Gordo Brown. Now, we'll finally pass global legislation to get rid of that pesky British monarchy we've disliked for centuries, as well as any African king/dictator and the Spanish monarchy while we're at it.

I'll top Goodman one more. Turn the world into one giant bureaucracy, one migraine of a government. It's worked, well not really, for Europe. That way Americans can make global policy and run the world the way it should. Great idea Amy. Make it happen!

(I'd like to point out the level of ridiculousness I went today, I just had to equal Ms. Amy's top-notch level from yesterday.)

Dug up Joe Biden Quote of the Day: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

- Tim Robertson