On Sunday night, after a weekend of wrangling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) filed for cloture on the New START treaty, setting up a crucial Tuesday vote on whether to end debate. A final vote could come on Thursday. As Josh Rogin observes, keep an eye on Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) as the clock ticks:
A lot could change between now and then. Senate aides said that Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) was working with Democrats behind the scenes on a time agreement for the debate. As of Sunday evening, no time agreement had been struck.
The fact that it’s now Corker doing the negotiating is significant. Until recently, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) had been the center of attention. But after nine GOP senators voted to move to debate New START last week over the objections of Kyl, the administration wrote off Kyl’s vote and decided to push forward with the Republicans that were willing to go along.
After the disgraceful capitulation on DADT, I have little confidence in Senate Republicans to hold the line and defeat START. It's amazing that a mere month after a historic mid-term defeat, Dems are about to ramrod two major pieces of their radical agenda through the lame duck session...with essential support from Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius--
Please tell me what is "radical" about repealing a policy when >70% of the public believes that repeal should occur. Also, what is radical about essentially re-signing a treaty with Russia that was first implemented by a Republican President (Im willing to bet that if W was still President, Republicans wouldnt even blink at START).
You dont get to call things "radical," just because you dont like them. The word has a meaning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...Dems are about to ramrod two major pieces of their radical agenda through the lame duck session...with essential support from Republicans."
The new START treaty, successor to the original treaty proposed by Ronald Reagan and signed by George H.W. Bush, is so "radical" that it enjoys the support of the elder Bush as well as all six living Republican secretaries of state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Disgraceful capitulation"? "Hold the line"? "Radical"? Really?
DADT repeal not only was supported by a significant majority of the public, but it also was the subject of thorough debate and study for much of the last 17 years.
New START is publicly supported by a host of former State and Defense officials of both parties.
And both DADT repeal and New START (even if the latter fails) will have received substantial bipartisan support - the former in both Houses of Congress.
Disagree with one or both. But is it possible that these are genuinely mainstream, non-radical proposals that Members of Congress - including Republican ones - can genuinely favor without being told not that they're wrong (that should be expected) but that they're "capitulating", acting "disgracefully" or furthering a "radical agenda"?
Why the hyperbole? Is it possible - just a tiny bit possible - that the proponents of DADT repeal and of New START are right and you're wrong? Or that the questions concern matters about which men of good faith may legitimately disagree? Or are those unthinkable thoughts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre people misreading the cloture vote? Treaties require 67 votes, not 51. On other matters, the colture vote was decisive. Even if a Pub switched on the final tally, 51 was inevitable. But here its meaningless. One could vote for for cloture and later revoke support, or just the fact that 60 isn't enough anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius,
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2012 is getting closer by the day. Break out th ebrooms for another House (& Senate) cleaning.
Yet another reason why I and fellow TN Republicans will be looking eagerly for a primary challenger to Corker.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre we at the point where public opinion is what decides policy? If so, then we are doomed as a nation. The founding fathers understood the dangers of a direct democracy, and therefore installed a Constitutional Republic.
This START treaty is a non-starter, that I suspect many of you have not bother to read about. The Republicans that are holding out, are doing so for two reasons:
1. The wording on Missile Defense does not allow for verification by the US of Russian compliance.
2. Democrats have attempted to restrict debate and amendments that would strengthen verification procedures.
Anyone wonder why?
Publius is correct, and I would welcome the rest of you to avoid knee-jerk adherence to 'public' opinion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think I've gotta come down opposite Publius on this one. DADT isn't a "capitulation", and in the end this whole issue will vanish with hardly a whimper of problems. Homosexuality in the army has always been present, even among the greatest of forces. From to Spartans to "rum, sodomy, and the lash" to the present day, and with countless examples in between, effective fighting forces have also been partially gay ones.
As for START, Reagan knew that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Is it really such a disaster? I would appreciate a link to some conservative who can calmly and without ad hominem indulgences describe the problems with the new START treaty, and why I should oppose it.
On START I've seen much assertion, and little argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease read articles on NRO such as today's "On Arms Control, Learn from Reagan" From the article-
Unlike the INF Treaty, New START would limit a single class of nuclear forces that the Russians are eager to limit. Meanwhile, it leaves another class — tactical nuclear weapons — completely uncontrolled. And in that class, the Russians possess an immense and destabilizing advantage. It is easy to understand why Vladimir Putin is for it. But why would the American president agree?
also read "The Transies and the Treaty" by A. McCarthy
External Link
from the article - "Going in, before we ever get to ratification, the Russians have already proclaimed the treaty an ironclad lock against expanded American missile defense. They’ve got the treaty language to prove it, and they are insistent that future U.S. moves to promote our security would scotch the whole arrangement.
The Obama administration claims that this interpretation is wrong. Yet, keeping with standard Obama operating procedure, the White House is refusing to disclose the negotiating record."
Heritage is also a good source to read External Link
Transparency please, let the 112th take up the treaty and review / debate properly, this is not a lame duck matter, let's not weaken the US defense by rushing this through.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusespool32 - How did you manage to click through this web site to this corner post and then to the comments section without finding a bunch of exactly what you requested? There is a great piece from this morning on the home page that specifically addresses three points of contention (missile defense, tactical weapons and verification). I suppose you can disagree with the authors, but it is simply not true that these things are hard to find.
You say you've "seen much assertion and little argument". It must be because you are actively not looking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"he White House is refusing to disclose the negotiating record"
trust but verify . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Spool; others should be doing your research for you?
You ARE on this website, are you not? I think you can find all you need here, but if admittedly uniformed, why have an opinion ahead of time?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitch,
I deep link to The Corner from Chrome's list of "most visited", as one of a group of 14 tabs that open at the same time, and then browse the rest of the site as I have time or if links carry me there. People still click through from home pages? I guess they still read newspapers front to back as well? One ought never assume that a user will dig down from the top of a site - after all, this is the internet we're using. How in the world can you assume I followed the path you think is approved or correct?
I'm not actively looking - and though I did see the article today on the home page it's only the second I can recall at NRO that argues WHY we should oppose the treaty, rather than just arguing THAT we should oppose it. If you really figure in total that the signal/noise ratio is good on this subject, I think I can make a good guess which of us is watching more closely. Anyway, the point here is that regardless of the reasons, I haven't succeeded yet. Isn't it amazing that I can ask for some clarification and get it? Not, of course, without the additional noise under the signal, but as I keep saying... this IS the internet we're using.
The strength of the web is it's decentralized structure and its communitarian nature. Rather than each of us searching for his own answers, we're able to answer questions and solve problems through the conversation - see the post by Indy Voter for a perfect example. The Corner would to well to embrace a more web-like structure - its "blog feed" is a good start.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohnG,
In a word: Yes. That's the point of the this medium... sometimes I have something to contribute, or I have the links to hand, or know where they are, and sometimes you do. Throw off the shackles of the vapid, passive consumer culture and join me on the Internet, where people talk to each other instead of just at each other.
;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Are people misreading the cloture vote? Treaties require 67 votes, not 51. On other matters, the colture vote was decisive. Even if a Pub switched on the final tally, 51 was inevitable. But here its meaningless. One could vote for for cloture and later revoke support, or just the fact that 60 isn't enough anyway."
-------------
Nobody is "misreading the cloture vote." The concern comes from the fact that Reid in all likelihood would not have filed for cloture if he didn't have the votes to ratify. That he did file is an ominous sign.
It's clear that McConnell cannot hold his caucus together anymore. First it was the shameful capitulation on DADT, now it's START. Two victories for the radical liberal agenda, both aimed at compromising the military and neither of which would have been possible without defecting Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpool, you wont see a non-researched opinion from me on this or any forum. Google is my friend, and yours.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo your model is for each of us to do all his own research (nevermind this generally consists of reading the research of a set of trusted proxies) and then ask no questions, request no guidance, but only state an opinion formed in isolation? That's your model for internet discourse? Really?
Is it even worth mentioning that I didn't have an opinion on START, but only the question "Is it really such a disaster"? Sometimes research is as simple as a careful reading.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom Heritage today -
"The White House is still confident that, despite losing Graham and possibly McCain, they can still muster the nine Republican votes needed for ratification. Yesterday, President Barack Obama issued a letter pledging to fully develop missile defense in Europe. In the letter, the President claims that New START “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs” and promises that he “will take every action available to me to support the deployment of all four phases” of a missile defense system in Europe. Senator Bob Corker (R–TN) took to the floor welcoming the President’s letter: “A number of people on our side of the aisle have asked for it.”
These are some real nice promises that President Obama is making in this letter. But what are they worth?
...
Senators should keep in mind this Administration’s hostility toward missile defense to begin with. Within months of assuming office, the Obama Administration announced a $1.4 billion cut to missile defense. The successful Airborne Laser boost-phase program was cut, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor was terminated, and the expansion of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California were canceled. Adding insult to injury, President Obama then installed long-time anti-missile defense crusader Phillip Coyle as Associate Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology … by recess appointment. That’s right—this President not only appointed the “high priest” of missile defense denialism as his top adviser on missile defense, but he did so in a way to purposefully avoid Senate consultation on the matter. This is the President some Senate conservatives want to trust? On missile defense? Really?
New START is a bad deal for national security at any time. The Administration still refuses to release the treaty’s negotiation records. The Congress elected last month has a far more legitimate claim to approve this treaty than the one sworn into office two years ago, despite Senator John Kerry (D-MA) saying new members don’t count."
N Korea, Iran...AND Venezuela recently bought 1800 missles from Russia (I know they are anti aircraft conventional weapons but it's unsettling that they got them from Russia) It's a dangerous world, let's not rush this treaty, how about some transparency?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusespool32,
I think your initial question came across as less of a request for information and more like a statement of fact that you didn't believe there were any such articles. I assume as a practiced internet consumer, you are familiar with the problem of sarcasm not always coming through right.
At any rate, if you are still looking, the NRO homepage 6 pieces on START right now, 3 editorials and 3 articles. I'm not going to link to each of them individually, but if you go to the homepage and look for arms control, you'll find them. I suspect at least one is what you seek.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse