Arms control treaty

[PassedOut]

Looks like passage of the new START treaty with Russia is touch-and-go in the US Senate: Russia Warns Senate Not to Amend Arms Control Treaty

 

WASHINGTON — Russia warned the United States Senate on Monday not to rewrite the new arms control treaty being debated on Capitol Hill as American lawmakers clashed about the politics of ratification in the waning days of the Congressional session.

 

Republican critics of the treaty, known as New Start, offered more amendments to the treaty’s language on verification and launcher limits. But any change to the treaty text would require both countries to return to the negotiating table, and Moscow made it clear that senators had to accept the treaty or reject it as it is, without amendments.

It looks like the democrats have been played again by republicans willing to take utterly irresponsible positions in the hopes of political gain.

 

Mr. McConnell accused President Obama and the Democrats of politicizing the treaty by pressing to ratify it before a new Senate takes office in January, with five more Republicans than the current Senate.

 

“We should wait until every one of them is addressed,” Mr. McConnell said of his criticisms of the treaty. “Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the end of the year.”

 

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, responded heatedly to the notion that the treaty was being rushed. He said that Democrats had already put off consideration of the treaty 13 times at the request of Republicans, and that even after those delays, the Senate had already spent more time debating it than it had the first Start treaty or the Treaty of Moscow signed by President George W. Bush.

 

“This treaty is in front of the United States Senate not because of some political schedule,” Mr. Kerry said. “It’s because the Republicans asked us to delay it. We wanted to hold this before the election. And what was the argument then by our friends on the other side of the aisle? ‘Oh no, please don’t do that. That’ll politicize our treaty.’ ”

 

Mr. Kerry added: “Having accommodated their interests, they now come back and turn around and say: ‘Oh, you guys are terrible. You’re bringing this treaty up at the last minute.’ I mean, is there no shame, ever, with respect to the arguments that are made sometimes on the floor of the United States Senate?”

He should already know the answer to that one! Where has he been?

 

Of course not all republicans are willing to put politics ahead of country. The former secretaries of state from both parties have urged passage of the treaty, and all of the senators with personal integrity do support the treaty, regardless of party. But way too many republican senators have said that bringing down Obama is more important than serving the people. And they clearly mean it.

 

Hard to believe that Kerry is surprised. Hmm. On second thought...

[luke warm]

He should already know the answer to that ["I mean, is there no shame, ever, with respect to the arguments that are made sometimes on the floor of the United States Senate?”] one! Where has he been?

right... he's never had a part in any such shenanigans

 

Of course not all republicans are willing to put politics ahead of country.

as, i'm sure, not all democrats do under similar circumstances

 

The former secretaries of state from both parties have urged passage of the treaty, and all of the senators with personal integrity do support the treaty, regardless of party.

*all* of them? nobody whomsoever objects to this on its merits, eh? all objectors must have no personal integrity... demagogue much?

 

i personally haven't seen much to object to, but i don't know the ins and outs of the treaty... of course, such a treaty will be in place when i'm dictator, russia being a member of the ufss (as they'd be)

[y66]

Except from Peter Baker's story today

 

With some prominent Republicans angry over passage of legislation ending the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, the mood in the Senate turned increasingly divisive and Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers scrambled to hold together a coalition to approve the treaty.

 

Senator Harry M. Reid, the Democratic majority leader, moved to hold a vote on Tuesday to close off debate, saying, “You either want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists or you don’t.” But the fate of the treaty, known as New Start, was complicated by a deadlock over government spending and the political subtext about whether the pact’s approval would rejuvenate a weakened president after his party’s midterm election defeat.

This is what passes for leadership by so-called conservatives these days. God help us.

[kenberg]

I like to think well of my fellow man but this would be easier if Republicans would stop acting like total jerks.

[awm]

Sure, Democrats pull political stunts too.

 

But here, you have a case where every living Republican former Secretary of State, plus former Republican president George H. W. Bush, have endorsed this treaty. Previous similar nuclear arms treaties have passed the Senate on huge bipartisan margins. Yet about 3/4 of the Republicans in the Senate are voting against this treaty.... This is yet the latest of many examples where Republicans vote against their own positions simply to oppose Obama (other examples include the deficit commission and most of the health care bill). It's hard to find examples of Democrats voting en masse like this against their own party's prior position simply to spite the Republicans.

[kenberg]

Perhaps it is just a fantasy but I think Republicans may be seriously over-reaching here. Everyone understands a certain amount of political maneuvering but if the public comes to think of the rejection of the very broadly endorsed START as petulance over the repeal of Don't Ask, or simply as a poke in Obama's eye solely for the pleasure of the poke, I don't think they will be pleased. There will always be the ideologues who support any action, however gross it may be. But many people in both parties expect responsible action from those whom they elected. At some point they decide that enough is enough.

[Winstonm]

I like to think well of my fellow man but this would be easier if Republicans would stop acting like total jerks.

 

We have Republicans. And we have total jerks. But I repeat myself.

[kenberg]

We have Republicans. And we have total jerks. But I repeat myself.

 

I think you see this more than I do as an unchanging fact of life. But since the election I really think many of them have become unbearable.

 

The electorate did not put these guys in place to keep low tax rates for the rich, and I expect very few Republican voters are any more prepared than I am to lead a seminar on START. Mostly in 2008 the voters figured Bush the Rep had effed up the economy so they would give Obama the Dem a shot, and by 2010 they figured he was not living up to their hopes. If the Republican leadership really thinks that they have been given a mandate to announce that everything has to be done their way and exactly their way, else nothing can be done at all, I think that they have badly misread the meaning of the election.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

Although I am like you and see growing Jerkness in the Republicans, I know it is not universal. Sometimes when I see the opening for a snarky comment I simply can't resist. Plus, being from Oklahoma, how can I not paraphrase Will Rogers?

 

I think the Republicans are vastly misreading the situation. While it is true that the independent voters are completely disillusioned with Obama, they seem equally disillusioned with the Republican leadership.

[luke warm]

While it is true that the independent voters are completely disillusioned with Obama, they seem equally disillusioned with the Republican leadership.

 

do you mean they seemed that way before the last election? or now? if now, what are you going by?

[blackshoe]

Ken,

Plus, being from Oklahoma, how can I not paraphrase Will Rogers?

 

I thought that was Mark Twain.

[kenberg]

Yep, could be it was that Twain fella. But then all I know is what I read in the newspapers.

[Winstonm]

I thought that was Mark Twain.

 

I now quote someone I feel like: D'oh! :rolleyes: :lol:

[Winstonm]

Yep, could be it was that Twain fella. But then all I know is what I read in the newspapers.

 

That's really very clever. Thanks. I got a good laugh out of my own dumbness without feeling too foolish.

[PassedOut]

It was good to see that when push came to shove, a number of republican senators put country ahead of politics and supported New Start. Lots of stories now about the process -- here is the NYT: Obama Gamble Pays Off With Approval of Arms Pact

 

On Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, joined Mr. Kyl in declaring that they would vote against the treaty. At the White House, there was worry. People think this means were dead, one White House aide said in an e-mail message to colleagues.

 

Mr. Donilon convened a conference call with Mr. Biden and White House officials to talk about whether to file a motion to end the debate. Once the motion was filed, there was no turning back. As you know, there are some doubts, Mr. Donilon told Mr. Biden, according to notes taken by a participant.

 

Mr. Biden cut him off. Weve got the votes, he said. Period.

 

Other aides expressed doubts.

 

Look, Mr. Biden said, Im not saying I think we have the votes. Im telling you, we have the votes. I have personally spoken to 12 Republican senators yesterday or today. Personally. One on one. We have the votes.

 

And so they did.

Well done.

[luke warm]

It was good to see that when push came to shove, a number of republican senators put country ahead of politics and supported New Start.

is it your opinion that *nobody* who voted against it did so because s/he thought it was a bad treaty, a bad deal for the country? and God forbid that any senate vote is made because it is politically expediate

[hrothgar]

is it your opinion that *nobody* who voted against it did so because s/he thought it was a bad treaty, a bad deal for the country? and God forbid that any senate vote is made because it is politically expediate

 

I never saw Winston argue that every Senator who voted against the treaty did so (purely) because they wanted to hand Obama a political defeat.

I personally accept the concept of a principled opposition. (I also think that many members of the GOP are genuinely stupid)

 

With this said and done, I think that much of the GOP leadership was much more concerned with

 

1. Burning time (therefore blocking the Senate from considering a wide number of other topics)

2. Trying to defeat Obama

 

than doing what was good for the country.

[cherdano]

is it your opinion that *nobody* who voted against it did so because s/he thought it was a bad treaty, a bad deal for the country? and God forbid that any senate vote is made because it is politically expediate

Are you suggesting some senators were dumb enough to think the treaty was a bad deal for the USA?

[luke warm]

I never saw Winston argue that every Senator who voted against the treaty did so (purely) because they wanted to hand Obama a political defeat. I personally accept the concept of a principled opposition. (I also think that many members of the GOP are genuinely stupid)

well passedout has certainly implied that the only reason for opposition was political... and genuine stupidity isn't reserved for only one party

 

With this said and done, I think that much of the GOP leadership was much more concerned with

 

1. Burning time (therefore blocking the Senate from considering a wide number of other topics)

2. Trying to defeat Obama

 

than doing what was good for the country.

i agree... not all, but probably most who voted nay did so for political reasons

 

Are you suggesting some senators were dumb enough to think the treaty was a bad deal for the USA?

don't hate them cause they're dumber than you, they probably haven't examined it as closely as you have, or don't know as much about some of these things as you do...

[kenberg]

Quoted in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104616.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

here is how two Republicans explained their yes votes. Perhaps those who voted no have given equally succinct explanations for their vote? Lacking such, we can only speculate on their thinking.

As I understand it, one popular reason is that they voted against START because the Senate voted for the repeal of don't ask don't tell. And then there is the ever popular explanation that it was because people who live in Alaska can see Russia from their back yard. But really it is up to them to let us in on their thoughts.

 

This time, the petulance could not prevent an outbreak of reason on the Senate floor. "I will vote for the treaty because the last six Republican secretaries of state support its ratification," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced, adding that ratification "would extend the policies of President Nixon, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush."

 

A couple of hours later, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) added his support. "If you look at the makeup of our Joint Chiefs," he argued, "every single one of these gentlemen was appointed by a Republican president," and "each of these people have firmly stated their support for this treaty."

 

"The question," Corker said, "is will we say 'yes' to yes?"

[/Quote]