The New START treaty continues to be a hot topic in the Senate, where it remains one of the last lame-duck items up for consideration. It is also becoming an important foreign-policy question for potential presidential contenders, as National Review Online has documented.
Looking ahead to 2012, one wonders whether a candidate’s position on the treaty will become an on-the-trail issue for those running not only for president, but for the U.S. Senate.
Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tells NRO that he does not see START as a make-or-break issue for candidates.
“It’s hard for me to see this being a litmus test,” Cornyn says. So there will be room for discussion on this and other foreign-policy concerns? “Absolutely,” he replies.
A handful of rumored Republican START supporters — plus Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.), one of the treaty’s main boosters — are up for reelection in 2012.
“That said, I think it’s a bad treaty,” Cornyn adds. “It gives the advantage to the Russian Federation and would, arguably, constrain our ability to defend ourselves and our allies through the missile-defense program.”
Of the major legislation that has been taken up this lame duck session, I was against the food bill, the DREAM act, the Omnibus, and START.
I was for DADT repeal, (although I have some qualms about lame duck sessions of congress passing anything that has long term implications.)
I was undecided on the TAX compromise, (I thing the GOP caved way too soon, possibly because they like the idea of not having to take heat for the next 13 months from all sides when unemployment benefits nears expiration every 13 weeks and forced to choose between angering the base or having the media portray them as cruel. I am worried that if the GOP did not take it and waited to pass a more favorable compromise in January Obama would veto it to save face, which may have been great for GOP chances in 2012 but a disaster for the economy.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am against one issue Litmus tests, unless it is a really big issue, and especially inn states that don't have a track record of electing a lot of conservatives.
The START treaty does not raise to that level, neither does DADT as far as I am concerned, I would like to see Lugar replaced, the GOP can do better in Indiana, but some people are drawing too many lines in the sand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say that like it's a good thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVoters, not Senators, will decide how critical Senate votes on START will become in 2012. Republican Senators with an over-rosy view of the Russians, who also don't see our absolute need for effective missile capabilities, defensive and offensive, might just have problems being renominated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing is more vital to the nation than its military strength and defense against communist, quasi-fascist (i.e Putin's Russia), and terror states (e.g. Korea and Iran) eager to employ nuclear weapons against us. Nothing. Which is exactly what everyone on this site would feel as well should one or more of those weapons hit us or our troops. Indeed, they will feel even more painfully when we surrender the next day.
Thomas Sowell has written on this, how fine it would be if he were read as well. In other words, I regret that prioritization and a sense of proportion, what we have to do as adults, are so difficult for so many.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's hard for me to express how little I care about whether Senator Cornyn thinks this is an important or make-or-break issue. I would use more colorful metaphors to describe how little Cornyn's opinion on this matters to me, but they don't allow that sort of language on The Corner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The preamble to the Constitution sets forth the purpose of both the document and the government it created. It lays out six reasons for the work of the Convention, which naturally fall into two groups: The first four are concrete, practical necessities, listed in the order of priority the Framers gave them at the time. The other two are vague, airy platitudes about welfare and liberty.
And the fourth may be the most important - because if you don't "provide for the commone defense" the rest beoome academic. For the past 80 years or so Washington has done a *miserable* job of "form[ing] a more perfect Union", instead taking every opportunity to strip power from the people and the states and hand it to the federal government, along made a mockery of justice and for long stretches given up on the whole idea of domestic tranquility. But it has mostly done OK when it comes to providing for the common defense - until recently.
START may not be a "litmus" test *per se*, but it will be - and *should* be - an important factor in judging whether or not a particular senator is treating a *primary* constitutional duty with sufficient respect and seriousness. As currently written START gives the Russians something they have wanted for 30 years - an end to U.S. missile defense.
It was SDI that brought Gorbachev to negotiate *seriously* on arms reduction, and it ultimately contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. Now here we have Vladimir Putin busily trying to put Humpski Dumpski back together again - the old USSR under a new name - and Obama and the less intelligent senators are trying to help him.
That Cornyn can dismiss the START votes so easily shows that he hasn't really learned the lesson of the midterm any more than Harry Reid has. He still thinks they can continue the old game of politics as usual, he just thinks the GOP holds better cards. He still has no sense of the priorities of the rank-and-file.
Remember, this is the same guy whose NRSC endorsed Charlie "Flipper" Crist over Marco Rubio within hours of Crist formally announcing his run for the Senate. (And also helped fund Crist and numerous other "Establishment Approved" candidates in the primaries, in an attempt to dictate the outcomes and prevent those silly voters from picking their own candidates.)
Cornyn is as fundamentally out of touch as any Democrat going into the 112th Congress, and he demonstrates the fact every day with another "Did he really SAY that?" quote. He's going to be very surprised at how many GOP incumbents are facing primary challenges come 2012 because of votes on issues like START.
Regards,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse