Will the Republicans obstruct the Russian treaty?

Obama has come to an agreement on the terms of the Nuclear disarmament with Russia. It is a key factor in our future ability to manage the threat of a nuclear Iran.

In order to ratify such a treaty it requires 67 votes in the senate. In the past such action has not been a serious issue treaties are often ratified with or near unanimous consent. In current politics however things like comity meetings were never stopped in such a partisan fashion.

Leaders like John McCain have promised to stand against anything the president wants. Obviously Obama wants this treaty, do you think the Republicans will try to stop it?

I’m predicting even the republican party is not stupid enough to scrap this treaty.

I give the treaty a 90% chance of making it through the senate intact, how about you?

And I think that there really isn’t much that is too stupid for the Republicans to do in their present configuration. We are talking about them cooperating with Obama, and even Russians. :eek:

I don’t think so. I don’t think talks with the Russians would have got this far without some Republican support.

I think it all depends on the opinions of the fringe elements. The Republicans are just so afraid of losing the teabaggers and the bigots and the ultranationalists and other such fringe groups that they won’t visibly confront them in any fashion. If the loonies stay fixated on health care, and it’s inevitable destruction of all things Murrcan, the party might slip a little bitty arms reduction treaty by them. If someone wakes them up, and they notice the Russians are coming, all bets are off.


Clinton when asked about that listed several other previous related treaties which received overwhelming support from both parties when they came to a vote, passing with far more than the minimum votes needed. Though her tone was matter of fact, I took it as a bit of a reminder of the old saw that “politics stop at the water’s edge.” Reagan worked on START; it is hardly just a left wing issue, but rather something to be welcomed across the board.

I do worry that they will oppose it on no other principle than punishing the Democrats, because over all it looks like a good idea. These weapons have a limited lifespan. You can’t just store them forever and expect they will work just fine. It may be cheaper to dismantle than it is to maintain or replace them, and even if it isn’t, it does mean there will be fewer to maintain so that is a cost savings. I hope my worries are baseless.

Of course they will.

I look forward to Beck and Spokesman Limbaugh and the rest bawling over the Russian threat they invent to justify further Republican obstructionism. Is there anything that doesn’t scare Republicans?

The GOP will somehow equate this treaty with the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939. Why? BECAUSE OBAMA IS JUST LIKE HITLER!!!

You can’t agree with or negotiate with a muslim, born in Kenya, socialist, evil anti-christ. I mean, Obama is ltrying to get a treaty with the Communists for God’s sake! He’s probably selling the country out!

Plus, most of the tea-baggers are over 65, and don’t recall that the cold war is over.

The republicans will oppose this treaty, and the right wing entertainment media will be all over it.

I think it’ll pass, but the Republicans will spin it to make Obama look bad, or weak.

I think the Pubs will vote to block.

+1. I think the optics on this can only hurt Senate Republicans (and hence all congressional Republicans) whichever way they go. If they vote for the treaty, they hand Obama an accomplishment, a really good accomplishment, which gives the Dems another point in the good-governance tally. If they block it, the Dems have another tool to beat up their opponents this fall.

The only way the GOP wins is if they woo a few Dems or independents (Joe Lieberman, I’m looking at you) over to blocking the treaty so they can claim it was bipartisan blockage, but I think even that won’t work well for them.


Exactly. From what I’ve seen the teabaggers don’t seem to be making a big deal out of this. Yeah, there are a few people on the fringes that will cry foul, just because it involves both the RUSSIANS and OBAMA, and will see it as some sort of confirmation that he is indeed a Communist infiltrator, but for the most part this hasn’t really piqued their interest in the same way HCR did. I figure so long as they don’t insist on making a lot of noise over this, Republican lawmakers probably won’t insist on putting up much of a fight.

Let’s take a look at the cast list here:

Are there really fewer than 8 of these people who would vote for the treaty? I can’t see Snowe or Collins trying to block it, for example.

One good way of playing this is to get people from the Reagan era State Department to come out and say how much St. Ron would have wanted this treaty to pass - which he would. He was negotiating nuclear weapons reductions with real Communists, not pseudo-Communists like Putin and Charlie McCarthy. I’d hope that would give the more rational part of the GOP some cover to vote for it.

I would say Richard Lugar is the key. If the supports the treaty I would imagine it would be easy to get seven other GOP senators to back it. The administration must surely have consulted him and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a done deal.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) issued the following statement today:

Jeez, right on schedule. What an little prick. We can’t have an arms treaty with Russia if Iran may someday become a threat? And we can’t reduce our weapons unless we spend more money on a smaller stockpile? Does any of that even make sense?

I think at least some GOP Senators (like Richard Lugar) will vote for it. Even McConnell will probably vote for it. I don’t expect it to pass unanimously.