Romney and Palin
While I was traveling last week, I missed the spat that erupted between the Romney and Palin camps. Steve Kornacki reviews Romney’s track record competing against different women over the years, and he reasonably concludes that Romney comes off looking like a heel whenever he competes against a woman for political office. That seems fair enough, but what seems to have been lost in the discussion is that Romney defeated all of his women opponents. It is quite a leap from saying “Romney treats women opponents badly and wins every time” to saying “Romney cannot possibly defeat Palin,” but somehow Andrew gets there.
Of course, Kornacki acknowledges that Romney is undefeated against women, but thinks that the way that Romney defeated all of his rivals in the past could cost him in a presidential campaign. It could be that Romney treats Palin roughly and ends up looking so bad that he becomes radioactive to a huge majority of women voters in the fall, but what Romney’s record tells me is that he has no scruples about doing whatever is necessary to win a nomination or an election. There also seems to be the suggestion that it is Romney who is at a disadvantage in any intra-Republican contest in which gender becomes a significant issue. That is an odd thing to assume. Palin’s “Mama Grizzly” routine works well enough when the perceived attackers are coming from outside the GOP, but my guess is that it will fall flat and will come across as mere whining when she uses it to fend off Republican rivals.
Do we really think that most Republican primary voters are more likely to nominate a woman for President than Democratic voters were two years ago? Do we really think that Republicans would prefer the less qualified candidate because she is a woman? Wouldn’t many Republicans want Romney to succeed to prove that the GOP is not dominated by religious conservatives who will not support a Mormon candidate Wouldn’t that impulse to show religious tolerance overwhelm any impulse to promote Palin beyond her ability just to get credit for nominating the first woman nominee? If the 2012 nomination contest comes down to a head-to-head fight between Romney and Palin, there appears to be every reason to think that Romney prevails. Whether he emerges from that contest so sullied by his own tactics that he cannot win a general election is a very different question.
Your analysis overlooks an important fact. Romney in 2008 turned out to be one of the worst candidates in the history of politics. I don’t know what Romney was like in previous campaigns, but when you’re so unctuous that even GOP primary voters can’t tolerate you, that’s a new low in candidate suckitude.
Mike
I see nothing developing now that leads me to believe Republicans will deviate from past practice in determining their presidential nominee. The GOP apparatus will be altered to favor the one . . .
1) whose “turn” it is
2) who can raise the most money
Gender, religion, experience, electability — these have little to do with it. Whoever meets the two tests above will be transformed into the candidate the GOP wants. And since Romney can certainly pass these two tests, and will transform himself at the drop of a hat, I’d say the primaries are about over.
It deserves to be said that the sort of campaign that Palin would need to run in order to beat Romney is the sort of campaign that is almost never successful in the GOP. Insurgencies wither on the vine thence. They happen periodically with the Democrats, but Republicans haven’t seen a successful insurgent candidacy since Goldwater, which is the exception that proves the rule, really.
“Your analysis overlooks an important fact. Romney in 2008 turned out to be one of the worst candidates in the history of politics.”
In my opinion, your comment does not square with the fact that Romney came remarkably close to securing the Republican nomination in 2008. Had Huckabee not come out of the blue to win the caucases in Iowa, I believe Romney would have won the nomination, notwithstanding the anti-Mormon animus which became apparent as the race went on. (For the record, I am not a Mormon and am an avowed non-believer in religion.) Keep in mind that Romney started the early polling at a very low level.
In the first major test, Iowa, Huckabee came in first with 34%, Romney second with 25% and McCain a distant third with 13%. That denied Romney a nice takeoff heading into New Hampshire, which he lost to McCain by 38 to 32, with Huckabee a distant third with 11%. Romney then won Michigan over McCain by 39 to 30. The crushing blow came in South Carolina where McCain won by 33 to 30 over Huckabee, with Romney a distant third at 15%. Even so, Romney lost Florida by a narrow margin of 36 to 31 to McCain, with Huckabee at 13%, probably because the popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist had endorsed McCain at the last moment. Nevertheless, Romney only lost California to McCain by 42 to 35, with Huckabee pulling in only 12%. All in all, it was a relatively good showing by Romney. If anyone earned the title of worst candidate in history in 2008, it would have to be a choice between Giuliani and Fred Thompson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
As for Palin, I doubt that she will run. But, if she does, there is the small matter of debates which candidates have to engage in. Based on her performance in the short 2008 campaign (picked in late August, September, October, first week of November; total=2 months plus a handful of days), I believe her shortcomings will be fully revealed in a full-fledged campaign that drags out for many months, in the same way that Huckabee’s weaknesses were revealed in states after Iowa. In the end, I seriously doubt the Republican voters will choose someone who is so obviously lacking in intellectual horsepower.
Rebuttal Exhibit A: George W. Bush, two-term president, 2000-2008.
Seriously, what “intellectual horsepower” did Bush bring to his campaign? None, as far as I can recall. Palin could easily play “Act II Candidate” by taking a few months out of the spotlight before the primaries, then coming back with talk of being “counseled” by old hands — plenty of Bush I’s guys who came back with Bush II would be willing to join Bush III, right?
Seems to me that the celebriti-fication of our culture is at a tipping point, and Palin could easily ride that to a win if she (i.e. her campaign) plays her cards right. Republicans in general seem to grab every opportunity — usually with poor consequences — to prove the naysayers wrong, and if the naysayers (like Daniel, and me, and most anyone with “intellectual horsepower”) opine that Palin won’t be able to make it through the debates, then by God, they’ll say she won and vote for her in droves.
“Rebuttal Exhibit A: George W. Bush, two-term president, 2000-2008.”
Well, George W. Bush did not start off with really serious doubts about his intellectual capabilities. We had to elect him President to discover that fact. If it had not been for 9/11, perhaps we never would have discovered the true depths of his ineptitude. In fact, I voted for George W. in 2000, but not 2004, largely because of Iraq.. I did not think he was the brghtest bulb in the universe in 2000, but I voted for him anyway. I wasn’t looking for a game changer, but then I wasn’t expecting 9/11. Had it not been for 9/11 and the subsequent disastrous decision to invade Iraq, Bush would have gone down in history as a relatively mediocre President who did no great harm to the Republic, in the normal tradition of the U.S Presidency.
As a result of her 2008 campaign for VP, Palin pretty clearly revealed her shortcomings for all to see, so that polls show an overwhelming percentage of Americans regard her as unqualified to be President. That’s a pretty big hurdle to overcome right at the start. By contrast, George W. was largely unknown by the public when he started his 2000 campaign. And his primary challenger, John McCain, was not exactly an intellectual heavyweight, so George W. was fighting in the lightweight class, so to speak, when it came to securing the nomination.
There are other major differences, which all seem to cut against Palin. George W. carried the Bush name, so he started with the advantage of pedigree, much as handicappers’ ears would perk up when they spotted an offspring of Secretariat (not that I recall any his offspring achieving greatness). His father was a pretty decent President and his grandfather a Senator from Connecticut. He attended Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School and graduated from each in normal time, which gave him the Ivy League aura which impresses so many. (How many people regarded JFK as an “intellectual” then and now because of the Harvard degree?) Palin, by contrast, attended four or five (?) no-name colleges out West and took six years to acquire her bachelor’s degree, which raise doubts about her academic ability. George W. also had a running mate in 2000 who gave many people comfort at the time. (Even long-time acquaintances of Cheney later expressed amazement at his complete transformation as Vice President.) George W. was also the twice elected governor of a big state, Texas, in contrast to Palin who was the half-term governor of one of the smallest states. In short, George W. had many advantages that Palin will lack in 2012, including the fact that we had not experienced the incompetence of a George W. Bush for quite a spell before we elected him in 2000 while that experience will silll be fresh in voters’ minds when it comes time to choose Palin.
“and if the naysayers (like Daniel, and me, and most anyone with “intellectual horsepower”) opine that Palin won’t be able to make it through the debates, then by God, they’ll say she won and vote for her in droves.”
I seriously doubt that most Republican voters have ever heard of TAC, Daniel Larison or you, so I think there is little danger from any of that group expressing serious reservations about Sarah Palin’s intellectual abilities. So, fire away.
“In my opinion, your comment does not square with the fact that Romney came remarkably close to securing the Republican nomination in 2008.”
Uh, Romney spent 107 million dollars (including 35 million out of his own pocket) and came up with less than 300 delegates. That’s spending about $300,000 per delegate and still winning fewer delegates that Mike Huckabee, who spent a whopping 16 million dollars on his campaign. When you outspend a political opponent by more than 6-to-1 and lose, you suck as a candidate.
Mike
“That’s spending about $300,000 per delegate and still winning fewer delegates that Mike Huckabee, who spent a whopping 16 million dollars on his campaign.”
Once again your facts are wrong. Romney won 274 delegates while Huckabee won 247 delegates. See Wikipedia article cited in my post above. Secondly, you overook the fact that Romney withdrew from the race on February 7, 2008, two days after Super Tuesday, and endorsed John McCain, while Huckabee fought on for several months. You also overlook the fact that Huckabee benefitted enormously by not being Mormon, which helped him enormously in Iowa and later in South Carolina, but not too many other states. As far as spending money, I believe that John McCain demonstrated that you can go far with very little money but with the national press as your “base.”
“Once again your facts are wrong.”
Dude, stop relying on wikipedia. If you go to an actual news source, you’ll discover that Romney got fewer delegates than Huckabee.
Secondly, Romney outspent Huckabee 6 to 1 EVEN THOUGH HE SPENT SEVERAL FEWER MONTHS CAMPAIGNING. So, while there was an actual competitive campaign going on, Romney was almost certainly outspending Huckabee by far more than 6-to-1…and he still came in third.
Romney sucked as a candidate. Deal with it.
Mike
Intellectual horsepower has very little to do with a successful presidency. THe presidency is about recognizing a good counsel and implementing it without hesitation, it’s about judgment of character and of situation. American Presidents don’t have time to mole over policy details; they establish principles for their policies and delegate authority. One of the reasons of Pres. Nixon’s downfall was his inherent mistrust of the cabinet and inability to let go of control. Much like a company CEO, the presidency doesn’t demand geniuses; it demands excellent leadership and vision. Both of those can exist without significant “intellectual horsepower”.
Examples of “unintellectuals” who dominated politics:
1. President Reagan – he was getting far more flack for his intellectual prowess than Palin will ever get. One of the most respected Republicans of the time, former Sec. of State Kissinger, called him an unintellectual in his books and in the public interview giving the liberal media a feeding frenzy but in the end, Reagan dominated American and the World politics like no other president before him.
2. President Bush – call him what you want but as a politician he was successful on every level starting from the Texas politics and ending with 2 terms as the President of the United States.
3. President Obama – once you look past speeches and teleprompters, he isn’t as bright as some would like us to believe. For an international relations major to not know anything about international relations and worst of all, not know a foreign language, doesn’t speak very highly about his intellectual ability and knowledge. For a Harvard educated lawyer, he sure can’t make an argument. That shows lack of intellectual ability to persuade with sound arguments supported by facts. He can’t even make an emotional appeal. It’s always “a straw man argument”. But in the end, he was successful in Illinois, was elected as the US Senator form Illinois, and became the first African American President of the United States. Those are some impressive accomplishments.
In the age of over-exposure of politicians to various forms of media, it is much easier to manage a candidate who isn’t quite sure about things than a person who knows a thing or two. Former sticks to the script as if his/her life depended on it; latter thinks he/she got the right answers. Also, people that have something to say usually don’t hold back; there is a “paper trail” of their public statements which can be twisted and turned every which way for negative campaigns, those “less fortunate” usually don’t make their opinions known so they don’t have to defend them and vote “present” or stick to their teleprompters.
I like the idea of “Sarah Palin”. She brought the energy, fresh outlook, and maxi to the conservative movement. I am not sure if I like Sarah Palin 2012 per say. I believe she would be a good president because she is driven by the same idealism as was President Reagan. She doesn’t rationalize and over analyze things, which is the tendency of “intellectuals”. She goes after things she perceives as wrong without other considerations. She doesn’t care about “the rules”. Every one of these things is needed in the White House today to return the country back to the federalism and government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, what I fear is her ability to campaign. President Reagan was a significant national figure full decade before running for the White House, and before winning in 1980, he gained a good experience from challenging Henry Ford in 1976. Sarah Palin doesn’t have that kind of experience. She hasn’t even run a reelection campaign for Alaska governorship let alone a national campaign. I don’t believe 2012 is the time to learn on the job. Unlike candidate Obama, she is going to have to face very hostile media who will protect their “golden boy” at all cost. If she makes out of the primaries, which I highly doubt, she will have a great shot at presidency because she will be running against the worst president in past 100 years for sure and I think Democrats will have a serious primary fight which will further destroy President Obama’s brand.
Romney, on the other hand, is a great candidate because he has experienced Republican primary, has made mistakes and will learn from them, and in terms of policy, he has a strong argument that RINO cannot be applied to him because in Mass. he was governing a liberal populous with liberal legislature and one can only apply so much conservatism before becoming irrelevant and impotent. He can make an argument that his tenure in Mass. shows that he is the man of the people. He does what his electorate wants not what he thinks they should want. That is a populist stance and can be very effective with today’s angry electorate.
“3. President Obama – once you look past speeches and teleprompters”
I wonder, do people who reference Obama and teleprompters really not understand the “See! The black guy really ain’t that smart!” subtext to their comments?
Mike
I wonder if people who dismiss any criticism of President Obama as racism, don’t realize that they are the ones who suffer from racial paranoya?
President Obama graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Political Science emphasis on International Relations. This said, he doesn’t know what language is spoken in Austria, doesn’t know that Iran is not a tiny country, doesn’t know that Castro’s regime in Cuba almost led the World to a nuclear confontation, and doesn’t know that in Afghanistan people speak predominantly Farsi, Pashto, and variation of Turkman languages (Uzbek, etc.) not Arabic. I can draw two conclusions from this:
1. Columbia University didn’t do a good enough job teaching young Obama. or
2. Future President of the United States didn’t retain the information which was offered to him by fine professors at Columbia University.
Since public is barred from access to President’s grades, my guess is he is not as bright as some claim.
I don’t understand the subtext.
Also, it’s cute when Sullivan pretends to care about women. When he’s not demeaning them, he’s using them as a foil against his least favorite politicians!
omikaberidze,
To evaluate some of the claims you’ve made about Obama:
– The whole teleprompter thing: Largely BS. He’s done well without a teleprompter in some hostile environments (the Fox interview with O’Reilly, the “summit” with Republicans, etc). Though, even some liberals will admit he can sound clunky or disorganized in some situations, but he’s not helpless without it.
– Yes, he did make some comment about not knowing how to say “wheeling and dealing” in “Austrian”.
– He “doesn’t know that Iran is not a tiny country”: That claim is pretty much 100% BS. His actual statement was that Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are tiny ** compared to the Soviet Union **, in the context of how big a threat they are. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ
for the full quote in context.
– Obama thinks they speak Arabic in Afghanistan; That claim appears to be mostly BS. He was making some rambling point about translators (cf the “he can sound disorganized” remark above), backed himself into a corner wrt the need for Arabic translators in Afghanistan, and then corrected himself. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae-Ak9WuUio
for his entire remark.
– Obama doesn’t know that Castro’s regime in Cuba…”: I don’t know what you mean by this or where that idea originated. Please elaborate.
Also, to say that Bush was successful at every level of politics, including his Presidency, is a bit of an exaggeration. Unless, “successful” in this context just means that he won two terms.
Larison:
Steve Kornacki reviews Romney’s track record competing against different women over the years, and he reasonably concludes that Romney comes off looking like a heel whenever he competes against a woman for political office.
I don’t think the conclusion is at all reasonable. The first two stories are just political hardball, and there’s no reason to think Romney wouldn’t have done the same to male rivals. (It’s a funny coincidence that both Romney and Obama began their political careers by knocking a woman off a ballot.) Of course the feminist spin on both stories was ‘old boys club ganging up on the woman’, because it always is. That’s no particular fault of Romney’s.
As for story number three, how often does a white male politician get through a campaign against a woman or a minority without giving the opposition a single word that can be spun as condescending? He’s doing well if it’s only one.
Story three is really in a different category from stories one and two. Kornacki’s attempt to cram them all together and call it a pattern is lame and desperate.
The same Obama that had to go through a million debates in the democratic primaries, that beat mccain in his three debates with him magically turns into some sort of bumbling idiot that needs a teleprompter and speeches to sound good…
Epistemic closure is one thing… creating an alternate reality that involves completely ignoring events that are less than 2 years old is another.
Back on topic, 2012 is too far out for me to lean either way. Palin winning goes against any conventional thinking about GOP primaries. She’s hasn’t put in the work to be next in line, experience is garbage, she’s a she. But for better or worse there is nothing conventional about the current GOP. The inmates are running the asylum.
Steve Kornacki:
If Palin does run, she will be one of Romney’s biggest threats — maybe his biggest. Romney, in other words, may end up being the first GOP presidential front-runner in history whose chief rival is a woman.
Romney is better off the longer the conservative vote stays divided, which means Palin in the race is a boon for him.
A plurality of self-identified Tea Partiers think Palin isn’t qualified.
If a serious challenge to Romney emerges from the pack, it will be a fusionist who can rally the anti-Palin Tea Partiers, while competing with Palin for her Tea Partiers and the social conservatives, and with Romney for the moderate conservatives.
If that doesn’t happen, the conservatives stay divided between Palin and the various dark horses, and Romney waltzes to the nomination.
“I wonder if people who dismiss any criticism of President Obama as racism, don’t realize that they are the ones who suffer from racial paranoya?”
No one here is dismissing ANY criticism of Obama as racism. It’s just that the “See! The black guy really ain’t so smart!” subtext of the teleprompter stuff is pretty undeniable.
Mike
Dear Ratufa,
The topic of this discussion is electability of Palin and Romney. “Intellectual horsepower” was brought up as one of the cons against Sarah Palin’s electability. Success, in this context, is defined as ability to emerge from primaries as the party nominee, and win in general elections. President Bush, for all his shortcomings which he had many, did this successfully on the state and national level.
President Obama and Cuba:
He made a statement that Cuba, along with other countries, were tiny thus not presenting as much of a threat as the Soviet Union. For me, that shows a. lack of knowledge, or b. lack of intellect. Why? Because, Cuba, a tiny country, almost caused a WW3 by allowing Soviets to place rockets 90 miles from the US coast. I don’t have to remind you about it. Afghanistan, another tiny country when compared to the Soviet Union, allowed Al Qaida to plan, train, and shelter terrorists who killed far more American civilians than the Soviet Union ever did. In the age of nuclear proliferation, there are no tiny countries who present tiny threats if they are willing to do whatever it takes to harm us.
These “gaffs”, which you so easily dismiss as mostly BS, go towards my point that for graduate of such a prestigious institution as Columbia University (incidentally on a short list of law schools I would like to attend after graduation) with a degree in International Relations, not knowing such elementary things and not knowing a foreign language is a telling sign. I am a Poli Sci major with emphasis on American Political System; I learned French in my sophomore year in 3 academic quarters and a month long stay in France, so it’s not that hard to do. He can’t make an argument without using fallacies and without using a straw man argument, yet he is a graduate of Harvard Law School. He was touted as having the highest IQ among the presidents of the United States. Above stated facts put that statement under suspicion. This was my only point. Is he smarter than President Bush, I don’t know it’s irrelevant, but I can safely say that he is no President Clinton, in terms of “intellectual horsepower”. He is severely under informed on series of issues but again, it didn’t prevent him from having a successful electoral run in Illinois and for the Presidency, which was my main point.
Regards,
Omari
mitt’s real problem would be that all the pandering to the base he’d have to do in the primary season to sneak past our lady of the starbursts gets taped and saved for when he tries to take it all back to appeal to non-crazy voters during the general….we’d see more flip-flopping than a just-caught fish on
a pier
David Tomlin,
I think the division of conservative vote is overhyped. What we have are tea partiers motivated by issues and establishment motivated by electoral victories. I think establishment and conservative independents are apprehensive about electability of Tea Party issues and candidates in the general elections, which translates into her high disapproval numbers. If November elections show strong tea party turnout for conservative candidates and “tea party” candidates will win close races in swing districts, the GOP establishment will find a new religion for 2012. The strength of Sarah Palin’s candidacy will be proportional to the turnout of the base, tea partiers, and the margin of victory in the midterms.
However, if Tea Party candidates cost GOP control of the House, then we will see a serious division within the Republican Party. GOP will be in about the same position as Democrats in 2002 which will pretty much guarantee President Obama’s reelection. Economy has contracted so much that it will rebound enough to reduce the unemployment below 9%, despite the policies of current leadership, and ease electoral outrage, while conservatives will be fighting each other to find their electoral equilibrium. This would play into the hands of Sarah Palin because it will give her a chance to run in the 2012 primaries and show her conservative credentials and gain experience necessary for a “conventional” election victory without risking a stigma of losing in the general elections.
Either way, she is going to stay in the political fray for the next decade and I believe, if she wants to, she could be the first female president of the United States. Intellect or no intellect, she has shown very strong political savvy and excellent judgment. I say this based on the way she has handled the media’s obsession, she has pretty much made establishment media largely irrelevant in defining her while maintaining her name on front page news. I am impressed how well aimed and irritating are her press releases, which instantly get under the skin of her opponents and her critics. Most of all, she is constantly underestimated. Finally, as Dennis Miller noted, there’s a sentiment “too many people who don’t like her I don’t like so there must be something about her that I should like”. Many will look at her from that point of view which is going to cause some to reconsider their opinion of her.
Regards,
Omari
“He made a statement that Cuba, along with other countries, were tiny thus not presenting as much of a threat as the Soviet Union.”
If you think Cuba or Iran are as much of a threat as the Soviet Union…you are a *bleep*sucking, goat*bleeping* moron. You should be forcible sterilized and have your right to vote taken away.
Mike
My father taught me not argue with idiots, your response clearly demonstrates your bona fides, however, everyone is allowed their Don Quixote moment and this will be mine.
The danger (threat) is determined by a. potential of harm and b. degree of likelihood of harm. There are many things that can cause harm out there but the likelihood of them causing me harm, in the US, makes them more or less dangerous to me. For example, malaria is a dangerous disease, has killed millions, but since I live in a dry climate I should be safe from it; so it presents little to no danger to me. On the other hand, a rat which carries rabies and lives near my dorm is dangerous to me because I walk to the trash bin to empty my trash and it can bite me. So the danger is determined not only by the gravity of harm but by the likelihood of harm occurring.
In 1960’s Soviet Union lacked “first strike” capability thus the potential of harm from the Soviets was great but the likelihood of them harming us was low because of our missiles were stationed in Turkey and Britain giving us the first strike capability. Europe could be destroyed but the mainland USA was relatively safe from the Soviet missiles, this was not true for the Soviet Union. The Soviets became truly dangerous when Cuba welcomed the deployment of the Soviet Missiles on their island. This would have given them the first strike capability which would make them extremely DANGEROUS to us. If you like to learn more about said topic read the book written by Allen Dulles, founder and Director of the CIA. If Cuba had not allowed the deployment, then the likelihood would have stayed low. We reach a conclusion that though Cuba itself may not present as mach potential for harm, the regime in Cuba through its actions could elevate likelihood of the harm to the US to DANGEROUS levels. Thus our policy has to be mindful of harm aspect – the Soviet Union, and likelihood aspect – Cuba.
This thesis was proven by Afghanistan. Afghanistan itself did not present the same potential of harm as the Soviet Union did. However, by allowing Al Qaida to find shelter, be able to plan, train, and bring HARM to the US, Afghanistan elevated likelihood of that harm to critical level. At that moment, they became more dangerous than the Soviet Union. Same goes to Venezuela. They might not harm us significantly, but they can sell uranium to our enemies thus increasing the likelihood of them acquiring a nuclear weapon and using it against us. President Obama talkes like you and doesn’t look at things in more detail which shouldn’t be the case for a person who has studied Political Science and International Relashionships. What does that make him? If he walks like one, and he talks like one, … you draw the conclusion.
I hope this helps.
“I hope this helps.”
I didn’t need any help. Your stupidity is blindingly obvious.
To humor you for a moment, however, your argument over Cuba is nothing more than a straw man. OF COURSE, Cuba was a threat in the 1960s because of its connection to the Soviet Union. No one is denying that, not even President Obama. The statement of Obama’s that you are so idiotically taking issue with was concerning the threat Cuba and similar states pose today, in the absence of anything like the Soviet Union to enhance their potential danger.
Secondly, Afghanistan is NOT more dangerous than the Soviet Union, you pathetic dolt. An angry man with a gun is more dangerous than an angry man with a knife, even if the angry man with a knife is more likely to attack you. That’s because it’s harder to defend against a gun and it’s more likely to cause greater damage. Similarly, a nation with the capacity to kill billions of human beings is more dangerous than a country that harbors terrorists with the capacity to kill thousands at most.
Thirdly, Venezuela? You really are out of your cotton picking mind. The microscopic possibility of Venezuela selling uranium to someone is more of a threat than the thousands of nuclear warheads the Soviet Union had targeted at the United States?
You are an idiot, which makes a Poli Sci degree perfect for you.
Mike
This is the statement you are ineptly trying to defend with some superficial arguments:
‘Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’
Let’s dissect this statement. The Soviet Union NEVER said they were going to wipe the US off the planet, officially or unofficially. They NEVER attacked the US, or harbored any organizations who planned and executed such attacks. In fact, when Oswald was arrested for JFK’s assassination, KGB initiated investigation to make sure he was not connected to anyone in the USSR or had received aid from them in planning the assassination. They contacted the CIA and let them know they would give a full cooperation in this matter. They wanted to spread the communism, they wanted to defeat the Western Liberal Capitalism, but they didn’t aim to “wipe you off the planet”. So that statement itself is false and uninformed.
Second. Instead of making uninformed and very childish arguments, let me recommend you to read 3 very important books about the subject of the Soviet nuclear threat and how real it was. First, “The Craft of Intelligence” by Allen Dulles, “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger, and “A Look Over My Shoulder” by Richard Helms. There are many other interesting books but I found these three to give the best analytical description of the soviet threat and how real it was.
Once you become more informed about the real balance of power which existed between the Soviets and the US in ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, you will realize how silly your statement sounds. Let me just give you an example. During the Six Day War, when Israel defeated Arab states, on the 4th day the Soviets realized that the Arabs were going to get whipped out; the Soviet Premier contacted the US ambassador in the USSR and demanded that the US call Israel back or they threatened to intercede on behalf of the Arab states. President Lyndon Johnson gave an order to get the 4th fleet ready to stop the Soviet navy if they tried to enter Israel’s territorial waters. The decision was made in the president’s morning briefing after a short discussion. They didn’t even warn the Soviets that the US Navy would take hostile action in defense of Israel. You can read about it in more detail in Richard Helms’ book; he was at that briefing in a capacity of the Director of CIA. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a country or the government who is afraid of getting whipped off the face of the planet.
After your 6th grade history knowledge will be upgraded on this particular subject, you will realize why today, in the age of nuclear proliferation, when not only nation states but international terrorist organizations seek to acquire nuclear weapons, rogue regimes such as Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, present more danger to the US then the Soviets who didn’t seek to Asher in 12th imam and openly threaten our ally with holocaust.
I know a PoliSci major, such as myself, doesn’t carry authority in your eyes but here is an article from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/americas/26venez.html
Oh, BTW, what you are telling me is that if you are attacked by an angry guy with a knife, you will ignore him as a lesser threat, and worry about an angry guy with a gun standing around the corner because he can do more damage? And you call me an idiot?
omikaberidze,
The Cold War Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying America as a functioning society. It was (and Russia is now) the only country with that capability. During the Cold War, many people believed that there was a significant chance of a nuclear exchange, either through error or via circumstances such as miscalculated brinkmanship. So, there is your “potential for harm” and “degree of likelihood”.
Given that context, and having grown up during the Cold War — a time of MAD and public buildings with “fallout shelter” signs on them — I have trouble thinking of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran as currently being threats on par with the Soviet Union back then (or that these countries were that threatening 2 years ago when Obama made the statement we’re debating).
That Venezuela could, in some possible future, sell uranium to Iran does not make them a threat remotely on par with Soviet Union during the Cold War. I’m not even sure what Cuba is doing on any list of current threats to the US . What is Cuba threatening to do to us, steal tourism business from Florida?
Iran is being hyped up as a threat right now because some people are pushing the idea that the Iranian government, which does not not just consist of Ahmadinejad, will use any nukes it creates, or give them to terrorist groups to use. I believe that Larison has written a few posts about that idea and has addressed it better than I can.
…..”If you think Cuba or Iran are as much of a threat as the Soviet Union…you are a *bleep*sucking, goat*bleeping* moron. You should be forcible sterilized and have your right to vote taken away.”
….”You are an idiot, which makes a Poli Sci degree perfect for you.”
Chill out.