I’ve seen just enough on Google news lately to know that former Alaska Governor Palin, during a rally this week, made a verbal swipe at President Obama over the nuclear weapons treaty he just signed, and over the nuclear weapons use policies his administration just announced. The Pres fired back in a statement, and the ex-Gov returned quips.
But that’s the extent of my knowledge. I would love to hear what my fellow Dopers have to say about this exchange, who “won”, and what it might portend for the 2012 election.
I’d really like to hear from conservative Dopers. The people here can be so thoughtful, wherever they fall on the political spectrum. If there’s a Doper with an interest in nuclear policy who has followed this, I’d love to hear what you think.
Yeah, even if you disagree with Obama on every single issue, it’s hard to deny he’s correct on this one.
The treaty with Russia agrees the US will keep at most 1,500 nuclear warheads. Which is still more than enough to blow up the world several times over. No reasonable person can claim that part of the treaty will make the US less safe. The treaty was a nice symbolic gesture but it really doesn’t change anything in practical terms.
Most of the warheads that will be eliminated were old and expensive to maintain. This treaty has the side effect of saving not-insignifcant money.
The only part of the treaty that’s at all controversial is a promise by the US that it will not use nuclear weapons on any country that is not also a nuclear power…unless that country attacked us with biological weapons. Or unless that country is not a member of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. (See the daily show for a clip where Fox News blatantly lied about that point: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - TV Series | Comedy Central US ) And of course, the US still reserves the right to retaliate with non-nuclear weapons if it is ever attacked. But Obama is clearly correct on this issue too, because:
This statement doesn’t change a thing. This statement doesn’t prevent the US from using nuclear weapons against countries like Iraq or North Korea (since they are not members of the NPT), and anyway everybody already knows the US would surrender any moral high ground if it ever launched a nuclear bomb at any country that couldn’t shoot a nuclear bomb back. So the statement really didn’t cost the US anything to make, but it did give the US something in return because…
This statement gives countries that doesn’t already have a nuclear program some incentive not to start one. Americans don’t think about it, but a big part of the reason why many countries want to develop nuclear weapons is to have their own deterrent power against the US’s nuclear arsenal. Some other nations find it hypocritical that the US keeps the world’s largest nuclear arsenal yet pre-emptively declares war on Iraq for (supposedly) developing a nuclear weapon. Why can the US be trusted with nukes if other countries can’t? This statement gives some assurance to other non-nuclear nations that they need not fear a nuclear attack from the US as long as they don’t pursue their own nukes. No one could argue that’s not a good thing.
In short, Sarah Palin was running her mouth and was factually wrong on the issue. She was clearly, clearly just pandering to a crowd with cliches about “the president is weak on defense”, etc that had absolutely no merit.
To answer the OP’s question about the debate (rather than the merits of the issue) – well, judge for yourself. Even if you’re just going by sound bites rather than analyzing the merits, I’d say Obama still wins, but see for yourself:
Jesus Christ, she’s still trying to go to the “community organizer” well. It’s not 2008 anymore. She needs to get some new material.
Oh, and Sarah, the President gets his expertise from actual experts, m’kay. It’s pretty simple.
As to the OP, I don’t see how this was even a contest. Palin makes an ignorant, uninformed statement. Obama points out that she’s ignorant and uninformed, and that he has access to the most knowledgable experts on the planet, and that he will opt for the advice of actual experts over the opinions of a halfwit civilian talking out of her ass.
Palin then asks him where he got his expertise.
He just TOLD you, you idot.
I honestly don’t how anyone with an IQ above room temperature can take this woman seriously as anyone worth listening to. She lacks even a baseline level of knowledge or intellct. She might be the stupidest person to ever have run on a major party, Presidential ticket.
Well, I only read through the links that doubled provided, and haven’t watched the video of the ‘debate’, but just from what little I’ve read, I’d have to say that…well, there is no real question of who won. The thing is, it was really stupid of her to question Obama’s credentials on this at this point. It might have made sense to bring that up when he was running against McCain, as he probably didn’t know that much about the subject. But, well, you know he’s been president for a while now, and he has, like, experts and junk to do that advising stuff.
At any rate, I’m not sure how much of a ‘debate’ this is going to be, as I can’t see many 'dopers coming in here and trying to say that Sarah won this. I’d be surprised if many 'dopers are all that hyped up about this treaty with Russia, or even about his later re-establishment of our position on assuring non-nuclear states that we won’t be using nukes against them. I can’t see that either really seriously degrades the US’s security.
I don’t think anyone could seriously debate whether there is in fact any debate here. Palin is a shock jock and little more, like Howard Stern or Ann Coulter. She may have some very impressionable people for followers, in effect. But the only reason the press pays any attention to her is that the other members of the press pay attention to her, and it’s pretty hard to guess what is going to pop out of her mouth next.
BTW I don’t mean to slight Howard Stern. Shock jocks can be entertaining, and he is. To his credit, he is explicitly doing this for a living, not masquerading as a politician or political commentator.
Id say today its more the case they want it as a deterrent against the US conventional arsenal, given few or no countries have the capability to credibly stand against it.
There might be some moral advantage to the US making this commitment, but I doubt it offers much practical incentive for the countries that worry about US aggression.
I don’t recall Sam so much supporting Sarah as pointing out that our contempt for her is a clear example of liberal elitism, and if we continue to insult that huge majority of center-right Americans, then we will have only ourselves to blame for the crushing defeat sure to follow.
Thank you doubled, that clears things up. Obama didn’t go out of his way to criticize Palin, he was responding to a question from a reporter (or whatever you’d call George Stephanopolous).
I noticed several things in those videos. Obama has visibly aged since the campaign. Obama is a very controlled person. Palin has almost no new material, and her new material (“don’t retreat - reload”) had to be immediately explained away (“and that is not a call to violence.” - Really? Then what the heck was it?).
And Palin is an idiot. The least of her idiocy is that she can’t even pronounce “NEW-cle-ar”, putting her in the same class as G. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter - not the kind of presidents a candidate really wants to be associated with.
I feel much better about the 2012 election now. I was afraid that Palin might have been able to score some points, or play the “bad man is being mean to poor little female me” card. But Obama can handle her with just the right tone.
The thing is, it was really stupid of her to question Obama’s credentials on this at this point. It might have made sense to bring that up when he was running against McCain, as he probably didn’t know that much about the subject. But, well, you know he’s been president for a while now, and he has, like, experts and junk to do that advising stuff.