Rush is back on the OxyContin again, I see.
Why not? They were in lockstep on health care, remember, at least after Snowe got slapped down hard.
The question is really “Are the Republicans still convinced that absolute obstructionism is a winning political strategy?” As long as that belief is dominant, then the best you’ll see is 8+ abstentions/absences, but never a Yes.
Exactly. I don’t see any evidence that the GOP is concerned with whether a piece of legislation or treat is good or not, they just want to obstruct anything the Democrats put forward. Maybe the dems should call it the Ronald Reagan non-proliferation treaty and dare the pubs to vote against it.
There’s just got to be some Republican support for this. I mean, we’re talking about reducing the missles to “only” 1500 each, more than enough to destroy the world three times over. I think both countries realize that the cost of eliminating a big part of their oversized arsenals is worth it for both nations. The maintenance alone on these things is massive, especially considering how old some of these weapons are.
Its not like anyone is proposing we eliminate them entirely at all. Surely some GOP members will see the light and not oppose something like this that makes fiscal sense just to be a stick in the mud.
Someone upthread mentioned McCain vowing to “block anything the Dems do” or some such. Is there a cite for that statement? Of all politicos, McCain has a reputation for “reaching across the aisle” so to speak…
Here:
Is there any context for that that we may be missing? I find it hard to believe that partisanship in this country is so bad that neither party will vote for bills/resolutions that the “other” party sponsored…just because.
Goddamn if that’s true its just lame. What happened to compromise? Its both parties fault, or rather, the lack of more than two parties. That just fucking sucks.
Neither party?
I don’t see anything about anyone but Republicans pulling this shit in the cite.
Have you some hidden source to support your oddly balanced assessment of the problem?
No, it’s the Republican’s fault. It is hard to find examples of major bills sponsored by the Republican’s that didn’t have a significant number of Dems that crossed party lines. It is so bad now that the Republicans are voting against things they supported (and often proposed) in the past. I think it is Fox. You no longer have to listen to any views that conflict with your own. Fox has started to lie about the Russian treaty like they did with healthcare. Just bald-faced, easily provable lies like the fact that the US will not respond to biological attacks with nuclear weapons. Just the exact opposite of the truth. It’s a poisonous situation and it won’t stop until someone is shot or another OK City bombing happens.
Ahh, always the optimist. Personally, I don’t think even that will change anything.
I really like the idea of referring to it as the “Ronald Reagan Nonproliferation Treaty”, since it’s an accurate moniker. Obstructing this, IMHO, is disgusting. Literally, for me – I have to turn away from the TV in disgust when Newt, Palin, etc. are spouting off against it.
When Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize last year, all the Pubs protested that he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And now he is doing something to earn and they’re even more pissed off. There’s no pleasing some people.
I would be surprised if the Senate didn’t pass it…not completely surprised, but slightly. Obama’s assertion that the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff are all behind it is no small potatoes. These are all people who served under the previous administration. In their words:
“It is clear that we can accomplish these [Nuclear Posture Review] goals with fewer nuclear weapons. The reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad, nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the United States and our allies by improving and deploying missile-defense systems.” - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appointed by George W. Bush
“I would only like to add that I, the vice chairman and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our combatant commanders around the world stand solidly behind this new treaty,” he said, “having had the opportunity to provide our counsel, to make our recommendations and to help shape the final agreements. Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States” - Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Maybe not in that cite, but let’s not pretend that Democrats have never been obstructionist to Republican-sponsored bills before.
This isn’t just any bill. It’s an international arms-control treaty that is obviously in the best interests of the US. When have the Democrats been obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist in such a circumstance?
Will they? Yes, they will.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7dMD5F3jqzrINSGs3z03BEPWkewD9F11QPO0
Bolding mine.
This is where I have reservations. There seems to be complete assumption on the part of the Left that this is so. The problem is that I haven’t seen any rational argument to that effect. Or any argument whatsoever. It’s an assumption and not a logical conclusion. I may be open to being convinced, but I won’t be convinced simply because you (plural) declare it to be so. You can’t just handwave away the hard work of actual thougyht in favor of your (plural) preconceptions - either you are able to make an argument or you are not. I see strong evidence of the latter, and don’t see any obvious or intrinsic benefit to an arms deal with Russia. In fact, I see few points to dealing with Russia at all: while they are a strategic threat, they are also now a regional power and no longer a significant enemy, despite Putin’s nonsense (him being the apparent kingmaker even after leaving office).
Furthermore, I don’t see any real tie to Iran, in that I see no effective way this improves our ability to manage Iran and/or work more to kill its nuclear program. This treaty has nothing in it to make me believe Russia would pressure Iran. Furthermore, in foreign policy I must stand with Machiavelli, Bismark, and Monroe: its about comonality of interest, culture, and opportunity, and Russia’s is fundamentally opposed to ours, or at least they see it so.
Meh, I don’t think anyone on the left assumes anything. To me it seems that the right assumes that anything President Obama does is bad.
This treaty is just a continuation of the START treaties proposed by President Reagan in 1982 and the SORT treaty signed by President Bush in 2003. It does not weaken our nuclear deterrence (at least I don’t see how it does) and it should help limit the spread of nuclear weapons. It also promises to save several billion dollars, something that is important to me, though I cannot find any solid analysis of this yet. Perhaps, SA, you could help us all by pointing out the problems with the treaty.
First off, it’s Smiling BANDIT.
Second, no, you don’t get to toss it back at me by just shrugging and begging to be told. You have to make a case first.
Third, even if it were a continuation of those treaties, that in and of itself would be foolish. Strategic needs and issues change. They have changed enormously from START days, when we had a specific reason, goal, and gain in mind. “Saving some bucks” doesn’t qualify unless we so desperately need to save the money that it affects our strategic picture. And let’s face it: Neither Obama nor the Democrats in general are all that interested in saving money.
Yes, things have changed from the START days - we have even less need for a large number of warheads now than we did then. We also have to worry far more about warheads being stolen by terrorists - the fewer warheads, the easier they are to control. We still have plenty to pave Iran and North Korea both if necessary. No, this does not include Russia finally getting tough on Iran, but better relations can only help in that regard.
As for saving money, the economy and the needs of people come before blind budget balancing.
Normally, I would say that given this kind of endorsement, the GOP would support this treaty.
However, the level of over-the-top rhetoric currently employed by the GOP to the virtual exclusion of any meaningful dialogue makes me wonder if they are sane enough to support the wishes of the people who actually know the ramifications of the treaty.
If Beck, Limbaugh and Palin are opposed to this treaty, then I will bet you a dollar that my two senators (Chambliss and Isakson) will vote against passage.
This is insane, but as unfortunate as it is, this is where we are in 2010.
My basic objection, since you have posted some rationale (though I think it insufficient) is that it’s idiotically 2-dimensional. Yes, it helped with “Russia”. But I don’t consider their nuclear arms a strategic issue anymore. Reducing them won’t offer any significant benefit, and we ashould only bargain if we have something to gain from the bargain. I further have no fear that Russia will let them get into sinister hands as long as they are deliberately maintining the weapons. In point of fact, I think this actively raises the danger. Weapons in a base ready to be used must be kept in that state. Once they are decomissioned… well, I expect they’ll be sold out to the lowerst bidder in a kleptocratic nation led my thugs and tyrants filled with well-connected criminal enterprises.
More to the point, this isn’t Civilization. Concluding any random treaty with a coun try doens’t “improve relations”, and neither will this. Do you really, honestly think that Russia is going to like us better because we have fewer nukes? Or that this would lead to any change in its international position? They are supporting Iran because it lets them feel important, because it tweaks our nose, because they aren’t really that bright int erms of recognizing long-term issues & trends & threats. Unless that significantly changes, which would require changing their entire strategic position, they aren’t going to budge, just as Obama’s previous diplomatic efforts haven’t really don anything, and just as every President in the last 20 years has studpidly wasted time and money and often human lives on “peace in the Middle East”.-
More seriously, we can actively maintain our weapons. They are in a much poorer position. They have opted to be our enemies, although it is neither a neccessary nor prudent choice, and it would be wiser to simply ignore them as much as possible, but much less wise to ease their budgetary constraints.
The implicit statement being, of course, that whatever is being done is obviously in the best interest of the economy and the people. Neither of which I agree with, although that’s a separate discussion.