Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:42 AM ET, 12/19/2010

Sen. Mitch McConnell 'cannot support' START treaty

By Emi Kolawole

Updated 11:39 a.m.:

In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley," Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said he would not support the new START treaty's ratification.

"I've decided I cannot support the treaty," said McConnell. The minority leader also would not commit to whether the START treaty would come up for a vote during the current session or if there were enough votes within the Republican caucus to advance the treaty towards ratification.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) released a statement expressing his disappointment in McConnell's decision. "I have great respect for the Republican leader but am deeply disappointed that he has decided to oppose the New START Treaty," read the statement, "I know many Senators, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who share the belief that this treaty is too critical to our national security to delay, and I look forward to strong bipartisan support to pass this treaty before we end this session of Congress."

McConnell's decision not to support the treaty, while not surprising, further complicates the administration's efforts to reach the 67 votes necessary to ratify the treaty. The Senate will resume debate on the treaty at noon Sunday.

(READ: Obama promises that New START treaty won't limit missile defense)

By Emi Kolawole  | December 19, 2010; 11:42 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  | Tags:  Sunday talkies  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dreams deferred, fulfilled as Senate takes up two historic votes
Next: Biden: We'll be out of Afghanistan by 2014 'come hell or high water' (Sunday show roundup)

Comments

This citizen has no intention of letting this thread die. Much more has 2 B said on this subject as it affects every living being on this planet. And because of the narrow-minded status of this back woods senator who relies on ignorance 4 his survival, there R those of us who must come forward 2 intellectually challenge this dangerous representative of R government. Make no mistake, Mitch McConnell is dangerous. His principal reason of being a senator is 2 make certain this president serves only 1 term. Not a reason 2 improve the lives of we citizens, but 2 thwart the re-election of President Obama???. He seems 2 have the mentality of a 16 year old Prima Donna who has never suffered what R middle-class experience today. I speak as a 76 year young Independent who had spent over 50 years as a Republican. My life has been good but I realize there R many in this nation that have been short circuited by the conduct of the wealthy & powerful. It is a pathetic squeeze the average person in this country has found himself/herself 2 B in. It is because of the corrosive likes of representatives, the ilk of Mitch McConnell who has bilked the goodness of what made this nation great.

I don't wish 2 overstate the following comment because there is no possible way 2 overstate it. When U C or hear these words, vermin, slime, reprobate, traitor, dung, a-hole, ignorant, corrupt, bigot, scum, worm, or worse, one has 2 think Mitch McConnell. I'm certain there R others who can easily add 2 this list if they R familiar with this hillbilly redneck hayseed who has no business representing the citizenry of these United States. Since he has nothing qualitative 2 add 2 the Start Treaty, let's force him 2 get the hell out of the way. I am embarrassed 2 have ever been a Republican. C'est la vie.

Posted by: vmax115 | December 21, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

This citizen has no intention of letting this thread die. Much more has 2 B said on this subject as it affects every living being on this planet. And because of the narrow-minded status of this back woods senator who relies on ignorance 4 his survival, there R those of us who must come forward 2 intellectually challenge this dangerous representative of R government. Make no mistake, Mitch McConnell is dangerous. His principal reason of being a senator is 2 make certain this president serves only 1 term. Not a reason 2 improve the lives of we citizens, but 2 thwart the re-election of President Obama???. He seems 2 have the mentality of a 16 year old Prima Donna who has never suffered what R middle-class experience today. I speak as a 76 year young Independent who had spent over 50 years as a Republican. My life has been good but I realize there R many in this nation that have been short circuited by the conduct of the wealthy & powerful. It is a pathetic squeeze the average person in this country has found himself/herself 2 B in. It is because of the corrosive likes of representatives, the ilk of Mitch McConnell who has bilked the goodness of what made this nation great.

I don't wish 2 overstate the following comment because there is no possible way 2 overstate it. When U C or hear these words, vermin, slime, reprobate, traitor, dung, a-hole, ignorant, corrupt, bigot, scum, worm, or worse, one has 2 think Mitch McConnell. I'm certain there R others who can easily add 2 this list if they R familiar with this hillbilly redneck hayseed who has no business representing the citizenry of these United States. Since he has nothing qualitative 2 add 2 the Start Treaty, let's force him 2 get the hell out of the way. I am embarrassed 2 have ever been a Republican. C'est la vie.

Posted by: vmax115 | December 21, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

The media debate is in full swing about the President’s huge lame duck session, and what it will mean for his poll numbers. Now as we sit on the precipice of the START treaty ratification, I felt it was important to glance back in the history of this President and see why exactly we are here today. A kind of struggle through the white noise if you will:

http://www.doubledutchpolitics.com/2010/12/for-obama-new-strategic-arms-reduction-treaty-is-start-of-legacy/

Posted by: RyanC1384 | December 21, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It's time the people of Kentucky stop supporting this corrupt fraud.

Posted by: walkman1956 | December 20, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sirs,
The Space Shuttle program became obsolete on Bush's watch!
Putin perfected his TOPOL missiles on Bush's watch!
Is McConnell concerned about US Security or a Republican Military industrial complex?
How much does it cost for their earmarks?
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | December 20, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

You did read the part about he would be happy to talk with the Pres. I smell another, "Let's Make a Deal" episode coming on. How many times will Repubs try this before they realize they may have gone just to far! It was bad enough to hold unemployment extension hostage until they got tax breaks for the rich, but to hold US security hostage until they get - what? Well, this is one way to get some of the pork they wanted but had to vote against so they could vote against Dem pork. Let's see - Russia selling Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan (although really too poor), etc., etc. a bomb they had just made stinks - so let's throw in pig pollution or the treaty is a bridge between Russia and the US - so in exchange we want a bridge built in one of our states. You wanted them, now you got them! But, then, you do like wars don't you.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 20, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

You did read the part about he would be happy to talk with the Pres. I smell another, "Let's Make a Deal" episode coming on. How many times will Repubs try this before they realize they may have gone just to far! It was bad enough to hold unemployment extension hostage until they got tax breaks for the rich, but to hold US security hostage until they get - what? Well, this is one way to get some of the pork they wanted but had to vote against so they could vote against Dem pork. Let's see - Russia selling Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan (although really too poor), etc., etc. a bomb they had just made stinks - so let's throw in pig pollution or the treaty is a bridge between Russia and the US - so in exchange we want a bridge built in one of our states. You wanted them, now you got them! But, then, you do like wars don't you.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 20, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

You did read the part about he would be happy to talk with the Pres. I smell another, "Let's Make a Deal" episode coming on. How many times will Repubs try this before they realize they may have gone just to far! It was bad enough to hold unemployment extension hostage until they got tax breaks for the rich, but to hold US security hostage until they get - what? Well, this is one way to get some of the pork they wanted but had to vote against so they could vote against Dem pork. Let's see - Russia selling Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan (although really too poor), etc., etc. a bomb they had just made stinks - so let's throw in pig pollution or the treaty is a bridge between Russia and the US - so in exchange we want a bridge built in one of our states. You wanted them, now you got them! But, then, you do like wars don't you.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

You did read the part about he would be happy to talk with the Pres. I smell another, "Let's Make a Deal" episode coming on. How many times will Repubs try this before they realize they may have gone just to far! It was bad enough to hold unemployment extension hostage until they got tax breaks for the rich, but to hold US security hostage until they get - what? Well, this is one way to get some of the pork they wanted but had to vote against so they could vote against Dem pork. Let's see - Russia selling Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan (although really too poor), etc., etc. a bomb they had just made stinks - so let's throw in pig pollution or the treaty is a bridge between Russia and the US - so in exchange we want a bridge built in one of our states. You wanted them, now you got them! But, then, you do like wars don't you.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Mitch has good reason to vote against the Bush negotiated treaty step. He just wants a chance to add an earmark to it. That's much more important than reducing nukes in Russia.

Thanks Mitch for reaffirming how you and the GOP are more important than the USA or the world.

Posted by: rian1 | December 20, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Mitch has good reason to vote against the Bush negotiated treaty step. He just wants a chance to add an earmark to it. That's much more important than reducing nukes in Russia.

Thanks Mitch for your reaffirming how you and the GOP are more important than the USA or the world.

Posted by: rian1 | December 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles, since DADT repeal passed, I figures your head would have exploded by now.

Remember when you wrote this a couple days ago:
"As far as DADT Repeal is concerned, the question that faces the Republicans, even those from the northeast with substantial homosexual constituencies, is the prospect of winning the White House back from Obama in 2012. They all know that if they give Obama this banner of victory to wave before his troops, why the homosexuals themselves will carry him on their very shoulders into the White House in 2012! Yes, giving him the margin of victory. And perhaps there is a coat-tail factor in this that might assist the Democrats in regaining control of the House in 2012, as well. If the left-base is highly energized, many seats could turn back to the Democrats."
So your prediction states that Obama will now be carried into the White House in 2012. The only intelligent thing you've ever said!

Tea Partiers are now talking about attacking not just Gay Americans and gay soldiers, but also the FAMILIES of Gay Americans for "enabling" them, even if it's their own family!

You do realize those families vote? Also, it never looks good to beat on someone's mother just because they are ok with their son being gay and proud that their gay son is serving their country as a soldier.

The smartest thing you can do is tell social conservatives to sit down in the back seat and shut up. Majority of Americans support the repeal of DADT. Majority of Americans believe that if someone is willing to die defending their country that they deserve honor and respect for that, regardless if they're gay.

Your incessant attacking of our troops is shooting yourself in the foot. If you attack one soldier, you attack all soldiers. You know what that means, you America-hating traitor.

Posted by: paulflorez | December 20, 2010 3:26 AM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles, since DADT repeal passed, I figures your head would have exploded by now.

Remember when you wrote this a couple days ago:
"As far as DADT Repeal is concerned, the question that faces the Republicans, even those from the northeast with substantial homosexual constituencies, is the prospect of winning the White House back from Obama in 2012. They all know that if they give Obama this banner of victory to wave before his troops, why the homosexuals themselves will carry him on their very shoulders into the White House in 2012! Yes, giving him the margin of victory. And perhaps there is a coat-tail factor in this that might assist the Democrats in regaining control of the House in 2012, as well. If the left-base is highly energized, many seats could turn back to the Democrats."
So your prediction states that Obama will now be carried into the White House in 2012. The only intelligent thing you've ever said!

Tea Partiers are now talking about attacking not just Gay Americans and gay soldiers, but also the FAMILIES of Gay Americans for "enabling" them, even if it's their own family!

You do realize those families vote? Also, it never looks good to beat on someone's mother just because they are ok with their son being gay and proud that their gay son is serving their country as a soldier.

The smartest thing you can do is tell social conservatives to sit down in the back seat and shut up. Majority of Americans support the repeal of DADT. Majority of Americans believe that if someone is willing to die defending their country that they deserve honor and respect for that, regardless if they're gay.

Your incessant attacking of our troops is shooting yourself in the foot. If you attack one soldier, you attack all soldiers. You know what that means, you America-hating traitor.

Posted by: paulflorez | December 20, 2010 3:25 AM | Report abuse


Refinancing means taking out a new mortgage with a lower interest rate to pay off your existing mortgage, search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" I got 2.831% rate on refinance!

Posted by: trinatate | December 20, 2010 1:46 AM | Report abuse

As everyone know's Mitch is a person found the old school and I really think that he is still not willing to accept change and he find it easier to say no, and due to the fact that he will become the second most powerful person in congress he has to let everyone know that he is a man of last word's. the thing that is bad about him he think that the American Citizen's are out of touch with what's going on, but I want him to know that he's totally wrong.I think that he need to stop taking us for granted and this come with the truth instead of using that grand old Republican tactic Fear.

Posted by: Stardust-Transportation | December 19, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Kill, Fear, Spend More on Defense, Republicans

Posted by: chucky-el | December 19, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Kill, Fear, Spend More on Defense, Republicans

Posted by: chucky-el | December 19, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Kill, Fear, Spend More on Defense, Republicans

Posted by: chucky-el | December 19, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Tactical nuke levels have never been negotiated out with the Russians. That has to be another treaty. But, that won't ever happen if this one doesn't get ratified first. But, back to an earlier point. I am tired of Obama getting pushed around by right wing trash like Mitch. It seems Obama is always the whipping boy who won't stand up for himself. Mitch is a bully and he needs a good kick back. Obama should be on TV ripping him and the other oppositional Repubathugs apart. Put them in there place. Then Obama would gain respect and much of the right wing tom follery would stop.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Old ,useless ,worthless ,rotten mule. Take him away, he does nothing. His voters must be genetic freaks.

Posted by: porcelainproductions | December 19, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Old ,useless ,worthless ,rotten mule. Take him away, he does nothing. His voters must be genetic freaks.

Posted by: porcelainproductions | December 19, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

“…The Senate approved the 1991 START I signed by President George H.W. Bush and Gorbachev by 93–6, and the 2002 Moscow Treaty signed by President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin by 95–0…?” -America.Gov/Merle David Kellerhals Jr.

Republicans… once again, are resorting to obstructionist “Stall & Delay” tactics which mysteriously eluded them during debate over “Bush 41 and 43’s” treaties. Considering, neither bill dealt significantly with reducing tactical nuclear weapons.

During senate debate today, Texas Sen. John Cornyn failed to mention it was this past April 8th, 2010, upon whence President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START agreement in Prague of the Czech Republic. Now after “18” hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence committees [1,000 Questions asked and answered], Republicans propose blocking this treaty merely out of sheer partisanship-obstruction.

And it’s not that I consider the Russian Federation an American enemy, but they are America’s greatest military nemesis. Neither the 1991 nor 2002 Russian Federation Treaties had at their core a reduction in Tactical Nuclear Weaponry… but for the crucial strategic-needs of either Superpower.

It appears for a select few Republicans... McConnell, Kyle, Hatch, Cornyn, the nonsensical and most ridiculously-extreme [partisan] positions actually makes the most sense.

Of course that’s not a blanket indictment of all Republicans, many [ranking member Sen. Dick Lugar comes to mind] … past and present GOP Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense Secretaries, vehemently support The New START Treaty’s immediate ratification.

Yet this of the hardcore extreme-right loves dabbling in ineffective partisan political gamesmanship, merely hoping to score some lame-duck points against the Democrats. Any concept of how crucial this bill is to American national security totally eludes this cabal.

That is... God forbid, a black-market nuke is discovered on American soil. Then this same group would be falling over each other rushing to Fox News screaming: "We told you so; President Obama hasn't keep America safe... as did-lets say, George W. Bush?”

There’s an old saying I think is worst revisiting here today on the cusps Senate Ratification… or not, of the New START Treaty: “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?”

Posted by: cbwHouston | December 19, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

What else is new Mitch? For gosh sakes, the military brass wants this treaty. Does your new-found grip on power so unnerve you that a good policy decision (lets see, one that is apt to keep us safer) fall victim to short-term political advantage? Makes me wonder why I'll ever pull the Republican lever again. What a spineless tactical decision!!

Posted by: taji528 | December 19, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Obama just won on taxes and DADT. Skeevy GOPIGS can't let him accomplish anything else!

Posted by: vze2r3k5 | December 19, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

What Obama should be doing now is holding a news conference and really rip into Republicans. It would be easy. How the treaty is endorsed by all the former Secretaries of Defense and State, all the former Presidents. How we need Russian cooperation on Iran, Afghanistan, etc. I guarantee you, if Obama did this, the treaty would be approved tonight. But, sorry to say, Obama is just interested in playing nicey nice. He doesn't know how to be a good leader. He's always letting the Right push him around. That's his major failing.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I think he is over playing his hand. At some point people are finally going to get a clue...that Re-thuglicans don't care about this country they only care about how fat their pockets get at your expense and my expense. I think Obama needs to get seriously tough on this turd. Tell him he will veto virtually EVERY bill that comes to his desk if he obstructs one more thing. Then dang well follow through. Once the nimrod gets a clue that there are consequences for his unpatriotic ehtically bankrupt strategy, he will stop the BS. Like we have stupid on our foreheads and can't see that this has nothing to do with a 17 page document they have studied since May. It has to do with grabing power. We do not have a democracy anymore people, it's a corporacy. The A-holes like McConnell are lining their pockets with the people's money and refusing to do their job. Keep us safe form nuclear attack. I hope the Dems put a BIG target on his back for 2012.

Posted by: jacquie1 | December 19, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

How can you tell Mitch McConnell is lying ?


His lips are moving.


Never trust a terrorist.

Posted by: StevenK3 | December 19, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Senator Graham says now he may oppose the treaty. Why? Payback for repeal of DADT. He actually said so. It's extremely difficult to negotiate these treaties, and Republicans seem intent to kill any arms control agreements the USA could negotiate with anybody. Now some Republicans are talking about the USA committing to missile defense by pledging in the Treaty that we (the USA) are actually going to build it. The Russians are going to think that we are insane. And you certainly do have to wonder about the sanity of some Republicans.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnel is the poster boy for all that is wrong with Congress. That's why our elected representatives are rated low in the respect category.

Posted by: janetwall | December 19, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse


Simple: You do not pass a treaty during a lame duck session of the Senate.

Not going to happen.

Unless you leftist chowderheads think Putin is planning a nuclear attack between now and January the 3rd there is no reason to even consider the treaty now. Harry Reid was more interested in forcing open screamers into the military than he is in nuclear armaments.

If it is a good treaty today it will still be a good treaty in two weeks when there will be 47 Republicans in the Senate.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 19, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

How dumb is McConnell? With modernization, the USA was planning on reducing the size of the US nuke arsenal anyway. That's because of improved technology, more sophisticated and accurate weapon delivery systems, and to reduce the enormous costs of nuke maintenance, transportation and storage. So, most of the Treaty for the USA is stuff we would be doing anyway. But, we got a bonanza in being able to send Inspectors right into Russia's nuclear facilities, to see what's going on and what the Russians are doing. We got this almost for free. Now, we will be giving it up because Mitch hates Obama. Because Mitch is a moron!

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

McConnell needs to know that he, Kyl, and all others who pass this bill would share in the credit of getting it done. We all know Republicans would have to vote yea and hence be recognized as being bi partisan. Why he can't see that is beyond me. Obstructing this bill is a disgusting display of politics and will backfire.

Posted by: sjp879 | December 19, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

JPRS says, "Pretty much the classic scientific take on missile defense is that it's been a massive waste of money."

This is pretty much the classic Democrat Party talking point, which they think is the same thing as an understanding of the issue. They are all still stuck back in the days of battling Ronald Reagan over star wars. It's like a mindless family feud (on the Demcrat side at least). And that family feud has entered into the Start Treaty, and that is why Republicans won't support it.

While missile defense was of marginal practicality when it came to trying to knock down 500 incoming Soviet ICBMS, its technical capability is sufficient to knock down a few incoming from Red China for example. Our missile defense installation in Alaska for example, is really the only thing keeping the peace in the Taiwan Straits. Red Chinese generals have publically threatened to flatten American cities if we would intercede on behalf of Taiwan. That missile defense system makes that threat empty. And for this reason, because China has no deterent to block American intervention, Taiwan remains free.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 19, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, are these the faces and substance of American leadership? No way, these old hacks are the face of American corruption at the height of it, champions of world corruption. Take a picture of them as they destroy our country for the bag of silver coins they get.

Posted by: likovid | December 19, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Senator Mitch McConnell insists that the Russians cannot be trusted. Presumably, by inference he and America can be trusted.

But how and why should we trust them.

I trust the Senator to be blinded by his own rhetoric and slogans that consists of a simplistic picture of the good guys (America) and the bad guys (Russia).

The Senator has to come to terms with closing the gap between these two powerful nations. He must also recognise that both of them have and will continue to have enough nukes to wreak havoc on one another and the world. It seems that he expects the world to suffer the madness that can be rained down on it by madmen in both nations.

One way to start minimising the threat that is posed by the US and Russia to each other and to the rest of the world is for both nations to enter into a program that requires them to reduce their nuclear and powerful weapons arsenals dramatically.

At present, the world is held hostage by these two nations. If we get someone who is nuttier than Bush or Palin as President of the US or Russia then there is a real possibility that one of them will decide to nuke the other (or one of their satellites) in a pre-emptive strike. I do not say that it will happen sooner than later but if we wait long enough in a room full of fire crackers then eventually we can expect someone to play with matches and set of fuses that will be unstoppable.

The Senator can stop throwing insults at Russia and start examining his own predilections and weaknesses because he too is dangerous.

Posted by: robertjames1 | December 19, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Republicans were NOT complaining when they rushed to Impeach Bill Clinton right before Christmas back in 1998.

Sign the damn START Treaty McConnell and STOP your childish incessant whining and obstruction.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 19, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

How foolish are the Republicans? If all the experts are wrong, all the former Secretaries of State and Defense, all the former Presidents, then the USA simply withdrawals from the Treaty. The language for that is right in the treaty. But instead, Republicans want to embarrass the Commander-in-Chief. They want to make it impossible for the USA to enter into treaties with other countries for at least 2 more years. Now these opponents mostly cannot even tell you what's wrong with the Treaty. All they know is they hate Obama. How sad and pathetic to sacrifice the security of your country for hate!

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I have a feeling that one can have too much candor - especially when it reveals the soul of an undertaker. So Mitch McConnell can whoop it up. But who will ever trust him?

Not me.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | December 19, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

This senator guy has been saying it all along, he wants to defeat Obama come hell or high water, who cares about anything else? Even the country. What an exemplary guy!

Posted by: likovid | December 19, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

There are rumors going around that Mitch McConnell represents the rich.

I think this is not really accurate.

It's far more accurate to say he's a lying zombie LAPDOG to the rich.

If you 'represent' someone, that implies that the person or persons you are representing APPROVE of your representation.

In this case, that is not true.

Most extremely wealthy people actually DON'T WANT Mitch's help.

Many of them have SAID SO.

( SEE: GATES, Buffett, turner, and hundreds and hundreds of others who have publicly said the DO NOT WANT the extension of the Bush tax cuts. )

So, in fact, and much more accurately, Mitch McConnell is a a bloodsucking zombie lapdog, doing the 'bidding' of people who for the most part don't even like him, let alone want his help.

Mitch Mcconnells goal is greed. Greed and power. He is so poisoned and demented by his greed for power, that he has LONG AGO given up on the 'middle class' ( 98 % of America ) and has completely 110%, SOLD OUT to corporate greed and those who say :

"WE DON'T NEED AMERICA ANYMORE"

McConnell is a disgusting, hateful, greedy LIAR.


Posted by: StevenK3 | December 19, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have made crystal clear their disdain for "those liberal population centers" known as cities. They would happily sacrifice the majority of the US population if it provides them the opportunity to take over the country.

Posted by: washpost18 | December 19, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have made crystal clear their disdain for "those liberal population centers" known as cities. They would happily sacrifice the majority of the US population if it provides them the opportunity to take over the country.

Posted by: washpost18 | December 19, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

YAAAAAA-HOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Yaaaaaa-hoooooooooooo!!!!!!

yaaaaaaaa-hooooooooooooo....!!!!


*boooooooom*


Good ole Mitch "Sam Pickens" McConnell.

Posted by: treetopflyer | December 19, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

How can you tell Mitch McConnell is lying ?


His lips are moving.

NEVER trust a terrorist.

Posted by: StevenK3 | December 19, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Some of the lunatic Right Wingers actually support the notion that the USA could launch a pre-emptive nuclear first strike on Russian Cities and thus wipe out Russia's ability to retaliate. Sarah Palin has even talked this way. If I were Russia and the treaty fails, I would consider the possibility Palin and these lunatics could come to power in America. I would double or even triple my nuclear arsenal starting now. I would seriously reconsider helping the USA on Iran and Afghanistan. The hard liners in Moscow are going to be having a field day. So much for World Peace.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure McConnell has NO tattooed on the palm of his hand so he can remember how he's supposed to cast every vote. An obstructionist of the first degree. He is a greater threat to the US than the Russians.

Posted by: jayclapp | December 19, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

LarryG, your disparanging remarks towards liberals, while admonishing posters here for their "stupid name calling" aside, the only reason McConnell won't support the New Start Treaty is to deny the President a foreign policy victory. Country First? Country be damned in favor of party is more like it. Tell me Larry, is Richard Lugar a clown? How about W's daddy? is he a clown too? How about all six former Republican Secretaries of State? Clowns? They see the treaty for what it is, a modest cut in strategic nulclear warheads and their launchers. Reagan and Bush I signed treaties with the Russians that cut deeper into our nuclear arsenals then New Start does. So cut out the "little Liberal children" BS comments, pull your head out of your heiney and see McConnell's proclamation for what it is, politics ahead of the 2012 election. Sad part for the Republicans is, McConnell's obstructionism plays right into Obama's hands for 2012.

Posted by: rcupps | December 19, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Although these repubs are always talking about Ronald Reagan, they are nothing like Reagan. Since the repubs have the collective IQ of a retarded slug, they are incapable of realizing this. This McConnell is the lead scumbag and should be removed from office for openly expressing that his only task is to thwart Obama at every step. This wart on the ass of humanity is retard evil in its purest form. The drunken mentally unstable weeping imbecile bonehead Boehner isn't much better. The dems are pretty bad but these repubs are so stupid they qualify as crimes against humanity.

Posted by: jm125 | December 19, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Of course he won't support it. Ratification would be another big win for Obama and McConnell will do everything in his power to ensure that doesn't happen.

Posted by: FauxReal | December 19, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Me first. More PAC money. Good of the country? Who cares?

Posted by: frodot | December 19, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Of course he won't support it. Ratification would be another big win for Obama and McConnell will do everything in his power to ensure that doesn't happen.

Posted by: FauxReal | December 19, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Ratheon, General Dyamics, and Boeing have signaled McConnell to oppose the treaty. His biggest Super PAC Contributors. So much for USA Security. Defense Contractor profits and campaign contributions clearly are driving the show here.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 19, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Why do you think that Sen. Turtle Head's opinion matters? If Mr. Obama offered a joint resolultion praising Santa Claus, McConnell and his merry band of corporate toadies, would all oppose it.

Posted by: BBear1 | December 19, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Saweeeeeeet Jeeezuz!

Here we are literally on the brink of a framework for a landmark reduction ON BOTH SIDES in these deadly and vulnerable nuclear arsenals, and this Kentucky small-brain starts barking at the moon.

McConnell is a hack, pure and simple. He warrants NO respect on either side of the isle.

He has disregarded the earnest recommendations of a host of Republican experts in non-proliferation negotiations, including George Schultz, Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger, and General Powell.

This hack is placing the long-term stability and safety of the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics at risk in hopes of scoring a few points with the tea-baggers and a few more against Obama.

The threat posed by his base political pandering to the loonies is not about some great East-West conflagration, either.

It's much more about the spread of black market nuclear components to people and movements that want all of us dead.

Nice work, Mitch.

Posted by: loulor | December 19, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Mr President, I think Senator McConnell just came in your mouth.

Posted by: 44fx2901 | December 19, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

This is creepy, as are many of you who have posted above.

There are good reasons not to support the START treaty, and sensible people can disagree on whether it is in this nation's interest. I'm absolutely confident that Sen. McConnell was willing to discuss his reasons for not supporting the treaty, but the Washington Post, typically, has declined to perform that standard function of a "news" organization, and instead has opted to present the mere information that Sen. McConnell opposes the treaty as "news". This, and the commentators above, are illustrative of the depths to which political debate in this country has sunk.

Posted by: mmwatch


______________________________________

No, actually McConnell gets his support from silly die-hard, Bush-voting, gullable, Fox-watching Repubs like you who proabably don't even think the POTUS was born in the U.S. There IS no reason. Did you want WAPO to make one up? Even Bush 43 told you "you can't get fooled again". Elected republican leaders only care about money for rich people. By default, this makes them hypocrites. The most incredible thing about the whole "Country First" slogan is how big a lie it was.

Next time, do your research before you post nonsense and look silly.

Posted by: a_skeptic | December 19, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

...or from those from the redneck part of Ohio (Boehner)

Posted by: staussfamily | December 19, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Never expect too much from redneck from Kentucky

Posted by: staussfamily | December 19, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

LarryG62 wrote:

All you ranting little liberal children need to take a deep breath and stop the stupid name calling.
Do some research and find out that another month or so won't make a difference, except that the Republicans will be stronger and that the incompetent in the White House won't have so many corrupt little clowns working for him in Congress.

--

Interesting. Here's you list of insults:
> little liberal children
> incompetent
> corrupt little clowns

All while totally missing the point. McConnell cannot support the START treaty because that would amount to yet another win for the "incompetent in the White House."

Posted by: Independent_Thinker | December 19, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Is there anything that Mitch supports other than those who support his payroll?

Some on here have taken the opportunity to talk about "homosexuals" in the military and to link this with what God likes and dislikes. My Bible teaches that God loves! All of us have sinned, each and every one of us. Jesus is the only perfect person who ever lived. Pick your sin, God still loves you.

Regarding gays in the military, they have always been there. They have always been a part of our society. My family and I are not going to be swayed one way or the other by gays who live next door. This whole military gay issue is a farce and most people know it, even Christians know it.

I listened to one of my colleagues talk about how our governor used Jesus in his commencement remarks yesterday. I find this awkward because John McCain was being interviewed in a Christian church during the election season and never once mentioned Jesus by name, something that Obama did. My Christian right friends fail to see omissions in their own but also fail to see obvious references to Jesus in those they oppose politically.

For me, there is a big difference between the relgious views and the politics that the religious right espouses.

Remember, for every soldier killed in battle, American society at large becomes more gay, assuming that there are no homosexuals in the military. This is true for any other malady that one would wish to choose that keeps people from serving their country in the military. Personally, I would wish that adulterers be drummed out of the military as regularly as gays. Afterall, who can trust a cheater?

Posted by: EarlC | December 19, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

You are so full of crap, McConnell.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | December 19, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

JamesWalterMoore wrote: "On behalf of many of us in Kentucky, please accept our apologies for Mr. McConnell and his highly-politicized tactics. He does not represent us."

========================

Then do your duty as a citizen, and don't sit at homw the next time he comes up for re-election. You do know that the reason the teabaggers and the vast majority of repubicons made it was because of apathy?

Posted by: fmamstyle | December 19, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagle sweeps Bozo Awards. Pictures at 11.

Posted by: st50taw | December 19, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

On behalf of many of us in Kentucky, please accept our apologies for Mr. McConnell and his highly-politicized tactics. He does not represent us.

Posted by: JamesWalterMoore | December 19, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse


Of course old Mitch the Witch doesn't support START. He thinks it is HEADSTART and no good repubican would support that.


Posted by: mortified469 | December 19, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, he could not support the military funding bill to buy armor for the soldiers and marines fighting in the war; he could not support allowing gays fighting in the war to be able to serve openly; he could not support allowing illegal aliens who joined the military and fought in the war, to have a way to become legal citizens;he could not support extending unemployment without a tax break for the richest people in the country; he could not support lower taxes for the poor and middle class without a tax break for the richest people in the country; he can't support funding the government because the bill had HIS earmarks in the bill; and now he can't support a treaty that every president, every diplomat, every secretary of defense and state, since Ronald Reagan, democrat or republican, supports. What kind of an idiot did his state elect to the United State Senate? He really cares about the US and the servicemen protecting us at the front lines in Afghanistan. His sole job is to see Obama fail and try to guarantee that the first black president cannot be reelected in 2012. Well, he may be successful or he may not. He looks like a total fool with the only word in his vocabulary being "NO" and dictating to the other republican fools to do the same thing. It will be interesting to see how the republicans make out in both houses of congress dealing with the tea party when they try to take over the positions that the republicans have and force the republican hands on different things. We now have the "NO" republicans and the "IDIOT - I DON"T KNOW - I HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE HIGHER THAN THE PRESIDENT - I KNOW CHINA WILL ATTACK US -- SECOND AMENDMENT OVERTHROW" idiots either in Congress or having run for congress. Thank God some of them opened their mouths once too often and showed how much of the fools they truly were and dug their own holes.

Posted by: charlesvilagboy | December 19, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

So the Senate rejects START. The Russians take it as evidence that we still wish to dominate them, which means they need other countries on their side to erode our position. Good-bye to Russian support for sanctions against Iran, say hello to the Iranian bomb.

For which, of course, the opponents of START will deny any responsibility.

Posted by: j3hess | December 19, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Anytime you want to know why Mitch McConnell votes one way or the other...just find out who's paying him for that vote and it will become clear. He is completely for sale and always ready to do whatever his paymaster wants. He has NO core principles.

Posted by: AHappyWarrior | December 19, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

LarryG62: Oh please provide us with your in depth analysis on the new SALT treaty. Mitch already did his research, which amounted to reading the Republican talking points.

Posted by: theAnswerIs42 | December 19, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

turtle

Posted by: brian_away | December 19, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Who's for the START treaty, and who's 'agin it', and why. Let's take a tally!

If you're not a supporter then it's evident that no facts, no evidence, no analysis will suffice to convince you otherwise.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up, with tunnel vision".

Posted by: tancred | December 19, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Who's for the START treaty, and who's 'agin it', and why.

If you're not a supporter then it's evident that no facts, no evidence, no analysis will suffice to convince you otherwise.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up, with tunnel vision".

Posted by: tancred | December 19, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Who's for the START treaty, and who's 'agin it', and why.

If you're not a supporter then it's evident that no facts, no evidence, no analysis will suffice to convince you otherwise.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up, with tunnel vision".

Posted by: tancred | December 19, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

All you ranting little liberal children need to take a deep breath and stop the stupid name calling.
Do some research and find out that another month or so won't make a difference, except that the Republicans will be stronger and that the incompetent in the White House won't have so many corrupt little clowns working for him in Congress.

Posted by: LarryG62 | December 19, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

D-0f-G: I WISH that it were true that their obstructionist attitude is going to start hurting them. The sad truth is that most of their constituency does not hold them accountable for their actions. Certainly they did not when extending tax cuts for the rich became their mantra.

Posted by: tradeczar | December 19, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell makes pre enlightened Scrooge look all warm and people cozy. This is the man that said his main goal is to see that Obama fails. Why is Reid suprised? This is the type of guy that would slam the door shut on girl scouts on their cookie drive.

Posted by: theAnswerIs42 | December 19, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

It's just till next year guys- sheesh. It's not like the Demcorats cared about it till now.

Posted by: moebius22 | December 19, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Of course he can't. He's Mitch, and that rhymes with ... well, you know.

Posted by: SickofFatCats | December 19, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

McConnell is doing his part to cause World conflict and possaible War. Bush did his best to draw Russia to attack, then Bush illegally invaded Iraq based on lies. Mitch is hoping the Start Act fails and Russia and US end peace talks. The gold is for the US to illegally Bomb Iran for Israel. This is the plan to make sure Obama and the US fail. Republicans know War brings money for War Profiteers like Blackwater and other friends who feed off the taxpayers. We wasted 9 Trillion dollars in 8 years with our children paying the bill. China will not loan any more money to the US once Obama leaves office.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | December 19, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Of course he can't. He's Mitch, and that ... well, you know.

Posted by: SickofFatCats | December 19, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I see the Liberturds from Move0n.org, OFA and others are out in force today.

When the Executive Branch tries to shove things through in a Lame-Duck session, without allowing the Senate to digest it and the VEEP telld Republicans to "...get out of the way..," I'd vote it down, just on principle. If Dick Cheney pulled something like this, the press would try to evisscerate him.

This is no different than the unconstitutional Healthcare Deformed Bill, that was jammed through Congress.

On 5 January, we start taking our country back.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | December 19, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

A note to "GoldenEagles" regarding healthcare - run, don't walk to your family proctologist for that desperately needed brain scan that you've been putting off - and do the country a favor and take Mitch "Head-Up-My-Ass" McConnell with you.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | December 19, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

This is not a political charade! That said, he could support it if Bush was in office.

McConnell is such a weasel!!!

Posted by: Freethotlib | December 19, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Good ole Mitch, just when you thought they might start doing something for the country.
Why is it the GOP always beats on others for not being patriotic and yet they are the ones willing to put egg on face of all Americans. Why is it they accuse others of what they actually do and actually get some people to believe them how dumb are the constituents??

Posted by: paulet | December 19, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Why is Mitch McConnell against START? Now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been passed, he can come out of the closet and START behaving like the mega quiff that he is.

Posted by: angelos_peter | December 19, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Good ole Mitch, just when you thought they might start doing something for the country.
Why is it the GOP always beats on others for not being patriotic and yet they are the ones willing to put egg on face of all Americans. Why is it they accuse others of what they actually do and actually get some people to believe them how dumb are the constituents??

Posted by: paulet | December 19, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

This ridiculous excuse that passes for the Republican Party these days ought to quit calling themselves Republicans. All they do is dishonor members of the GOP that came before them. To block ratification of a treaty that is very important to our national security and had absolutely no problems getting ratification in the past just to make Obama look weak or bad is beyond reckless. The ugly old jerk that is the minority leader is playing games with our safety and security and should be ashamed of himself. But sadly, what has become all too apparent with each passing year, Republicans are incapable of being shamed, no matter how heartless, incompetent and downright ridiculous they act. What we have in Congress these days is a bunch of overpaid juveniles.

Posted by: Sandydayl | December 19, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Since taking office, President Obama outlined two basic principles to both republican and democratic caucuses, that both, to some degree have ignored. To the democrats, he told them that good policy is good politics. However, the partisan "no strategy" of the republicans put fear into the democrats, and many of them abandoned their own accomplishments, and would not even vote on middle class tax cuts when it would have been more appropiate-before the mid terms. And yet, many of them, hypocritically, got upset when the president grab the ball and cut his own deal. And many of them still don't get it!

On the republican side, the "get Obama at ALL cost strategy" is starting to slowly take a toll on their credibility, because they ignored Obama's warning that once they started to say no to everything, it left them very little room for governance. The tax deal is an indicator that some of them will budge in order to serve their true base-the rich. However, relevant to the New Start Treaty, many of them like McConnell and McCain are still fighting the cold war as a pretext to vote against it. But more than that, their primary goal is to stop Obama from being a transformative political figure; but they have very little to show for their obstruction, especially for their low information middle class and poor supporters e.g. the tea people and others they have deceived for so long. More importantly, come January, Republicorp is going to have show the so called "independents" (in which the very idea between just two parties is a joke) they can do what they have never stop doing- spending; and not just on earmarks, which proportionally for Republicorp, is like being penny wise and TON foolish!

Posted by: D-0f-G | December 19, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

McConnell does know squat about national security. We supposedly had the best and we still had 9-11. The next war will not be fought with missiles, with nations shooting at each other.

This treaty needs to be passed so we can divert resources to real national security for the 21st century.

McConnell should be expelled from the Senate.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 19, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Never mind whether it's good for the country; the only issue is whether it's good for the Republican chances in the next election. New Republican slogan: "Let's demagogue that"

Posted by: thrh | December 19, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Never mind whether it's good for the country; the only issue is whether it's good for the Republican chances in the next election. New Republican slogan: "Let's demagogue that"

Posted by: thrh | December 19, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Unless it screws over the working people and shovels even more money to the wealthy the Republicans ain't interested. Terminally greedy, ethically bankrupt, obstructionist weasels one and all.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | December 19, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

For McConnell the legislation most likely doesn't provide spending for Kentucky. McConnell will always place country last.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 19, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

quick comment-

I admit some significant lack of knowledge about this START treaty but-

I have seen no argument that requires this treaty to be dealt with ina lameduck session-otjher tah this President's ego
and that doesn't qualify for expedited treatment-

this President and his party are too much into passing significant laws/treaties without much deliberation and articulation of the plusses minusses and COSTS (read healthcare package that no one can still explain what our grandchildren will have to pay for that 1,0000 of pages of unknowns- (no comment here on the Constitutionality issue-that stands on its own

Posted by: 27anon72 | December 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

quick comment-

I admit some significant lack of knowledge about this START treaty but-

I have seen no argument that requires this treaty to be dealt with ina lameduck session-otjher tah this President's ego
and that doesn't qualify for expedited treatment-

this President and his party are too much into passing significant laws/treaties without much deliberation and articulation of the plusses minusses and COSTS (read healthcare package that no one can still explain what our grandchildren will have to pay for that 1,0000 of pages of unknowns- (no comment here on the Constitutionality issue-that stands on its own

Posted by: 27anon72 | December 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

quick comment-

I admit some significant lack of knowledge about this START treaty but-

I have seen no argument that requires this treaty to be dealt with ina lameduck session-otjher tah this President's ego
and that doesn't qualify for expedited treatment-

this President and his party are too much into passing significant laws/treaties without much deliberation and articulation of the plusses minusses and COSTS (read healthcare package that no one can still explain what our grandchildren will have to pay for that 1,0000 of pages of unknowns- (no comment here on the Constitutionality issue-that stands on its own

Posted by: 27anon72 | December 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

quick comment-

I admit some significant lack of knowledge about this START treaty but-

I have seen no argument that requires this treaty to be dealt with ina lameduck session-otjher tah this President's ego
and that doesn't qualify for expedited treatment-

this President and his party are too much into passing significant laws/treaties without much deliberation and articulation of the plusses minusses and COSTS (read healthcare package that no one can still explain what our grandchildren will have to pay for that 1,0000 of pages of unknowns- (no comment here on the Constitutionality issue-that stands on its own

Posted by: 27anon72 | December 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell, that chinless turkeynecked blubbery excuse for a human being is Republican first and America and the humanity a disatant second. If he is representative of Kentucky then it is time we have Civil War II. This time, throwing the South and the fence sitters out on their bums rather than preserving the Union. We're better off without those ignorant yahoos.

Posted by: pjs1965 | December 19, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

More proof that McConnell considers "national security" a political pawn - and naturally the other GOP senators will fall in line, goose-stepping all the way.
Truly disgusting!!

Posted by: angie12106 | December 19, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

THE ENEMY WITHIN... The tile of Mitch McConnell's autobiography.

Posted by: whocares666 | December 19, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse


He's silly, basically.

Write down and peruse his last 30 pronouncements or so. And be amazed.

Posted by: whistling | December 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse


Who else is so old they remember when there were some reasonable, even great, Southern leaders in congress? Instead of flat faced mumbling angry screamers. It's been a long, long time.

He's so POINTLESS.

Posted by: whistling | December 19, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

So much for Mitchie supporting the military and so many former Republican national security officials, just to make sure the Obama Administration doesn't get things accomplished.

What idiotic politicking.

Posted by: HillRat | December 19, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Basically, it doesn't matter. The GOP promised that if DADT passed they would stall START. That's what they are doing. Republicans are in a different position now. They have to help govern, not just stand back and scream, "NO!" If they want to become known as the party that trashed the first responder bill and stalled START, so be it.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 19, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

the repulbicans are against:

an extension of unemployment benefits for two million Americans just before Christmas

blocking the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act which gets health care to 9/11 first repsonders with all sorts of diseases due to their exposure to toxins at the WTC

the START Treaty, which is approved by our military, as well as many high-ranking members of former republican presidential administrations

But they are FOR an EXTRA $700 billion tax cut for the top two percent that won't create any jobs and which we'll have to borrow from China

Pigs.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | December 19, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

MCConnell will not support the treaty because it has no provision of giving tax breaks to the very wealthy, particulary the money we can easily borrow from China.

Posted by: ak1967 | December 19, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell is just like Larry Craig, if you get my drift. . . .

Posted by: harryejones | December 19, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Democracy can't work with corruption and failure of the Party in power as the pivot...

Posted by: WmLaney | December 19, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

This treaty does not give money, that we can borrow from China, to the very wealthy, hence it should not be supported, according to McConnell.

Posted by: ak1967 | December 19, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

This treaty does not give money, that we can borrow from China, to the very wealthy, hence it should not be supported, according to McConnell.

Posted by: ak1967 | December 19, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

This treaty does not give money, that we can borrow from China, to the very wealthy, hence it should not be supported, according to McConnell.

Posted by: ak1967 | December 19, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I want this piece of excrement out of the Senate now.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | December 19, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

This treaty does not give borrowed money to the wealthy, so McConnel can not support it. It is fully understandable.

Posted by: ak1967 | December 19, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Mitch 'Puppet-Face' McConnell cannot support START treaty"

Really? What about Uncle Obama? What will he give up to Puppet-Face to get him to PROTECT' America? The right for Gays and Minorities to vote?

Posted by: question-guy | December 19, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

What an irresponsible, extremist and psychotic party the GOP of 2010 has become. There are a long list of retired Republican ICONS of foreign policy who have urged Congress to pass START. But these anti-American goons would rather let nukes get into the hands of terrorists than give Obama something positive to point to during his tenure (as if the idiots themselves couldn't just take credit for it, if they would only get on board with sensible policy for once).

Radical nutcase (climate change denier) Jim DeMint has even gone so far as to whine that we shouldn't be talking about this before Christmas. Apparently it offends his "Christian" sensibilities to discussing a PEACE treaty during the shopping season leading up to the date when the supposed Prince of Peace was born.

Where did the right wing GET these people? They're like nefarious dark clowns from central casting of a villain movie. But you would laugh at them still, if you saw them on a screen.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 19, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Reagan signed in a START treaty, so why not Mitch?

Do you sleep better at night knowing that without this treaty, the US will have no inspection authority over Russia loose nukes, and that some caveman in Pakistan or Afghanistan, or the Mullahs of Teheran might get his hands on one?

Posted by: marioliggi | December 19, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"The American people don't trust Obama on national security."

Another lie.

The American people overwhelmingly support START ratification, as does the ENTIRE U.S. Military.

73% support (CNN)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/cnn-poll-three-quarters-say-ratify-start-treaty/

82% support (CBS)
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_120310.pdf

GoldenEagles is just proving his conservative bona fides by being a serial liar. That's all cowards like him have is falsehoods and fabrications, because they are terrified of the truth.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Ethan20 says, "All those... um... missile attacks. Yeah that's the ticket ... Idiot."

That is the classic Democrat perspective on missile defense. And this is the perspective that the Democrats have allowed into this treaty. Therefore, the treaty must not be ratifed.

Posted by: GoldenEagles

///////////////////////

Pretty much the classic scientific take on missile defense is that it's been a massive waste of money. Strategically it provides zero security against a nation with a massive stock-pile of nuclear warheads, and its merits against a single intercontinental ballistic missile are a crap-shoot.

Of course for the anti-science GOP base, St. Reagan said it so it must be done, so there it is.

This is a little like the Nazis -- and Hitler in particular -- who doubted the merits of atomic weapons (a concept that was the by-product of "Jewish science"), while focusing their energies on a "death ray".

The GOP position to this isn't especially principled. At best it's a shake-down for GOP campaign financiers, probably just as likely this is about just being a-holes.

For the GOP leadership of the Bush-era national security has always been negotiable.

Posted by: JPRS | December 19, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The GOP said that if DADT repeal passed, they would hold up START, and now they are trying to do that. I have no respect for a party that trashes the first responder bill and politicizes national security.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 19, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The GOP said that if DADT passed, they would hold up START, and now they are trying to do that. I have no respect for a party that trashes the first responder bill and politicizes national security.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 19, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The timing here is not coincidental. People may recall the not-subtle rumors a couple of days ago that the Republicans had threatened not to support START if DADT were repealed. McConnell put his eggs in the basket of bashing gay people, and now he feels like he has to follow through by damaging our nuclear security.

Posted by: jeffwacker | December 19, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I can't stand how Reid can say he has great respect for somebody who's been an unpatriotic obstructionist the past two years. How can you have great respect for somebody who's willing to put national security at a legitimate risk?

Posted by: fbutler1 | December 19, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

McConnell probably has "trouble" supporting anything that doesn't involve huge $$$ giveaways to the GOP's core constituency

Posted by: staussfamily | December 19, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles is not only a liar, but he is unwilling to confront his own lies. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we call a COWARD.

Here is the Politifact article that calls "government takeover of healthcare" the LIE OF THE YEAR:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

I'm sure GoldenEagles hasn't read that -- and won't -- because he is a coward who is too afraid of the truth to be an honest person.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

lemondog says, "The only reason MConnell is opposing START is because it is coming up under the Obama administration. McConnell would oppose a cancer cure if it came under Obama's watch. It has nothing to do with the merits of the treaty."

That's the whole point lemondog. When you have an individual in Obama who has no sense of what national security means, there is nothing he can do to enhance it. It is basically a crap shoot for him. It is wise to oppose this treaty. It should be held over to the time when you have a Republican president in office, that would be 2012, and let a person who has some sense of national security reenter the negotations. That we, and the American people, could trust the result. The American people don't trust Obama on national security.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 19, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 says, "GoldenEagles is a LIAR."

No, GoldenEagles told a truth that shocked you out of your socks, and in response, you swung around and pointed your intellectual "weapon" in my direction and pulled the trigger, but nothing happened, there was no round in the chamber. You took out the magazine, and discovered, to your chagrin that you were out of ammunition. Not a single round left. Having no ammunition, you stooped down and scooped up a handful of mud, and settled for splattering that all over my golden wings. Beyond this accurate description of events, I will just have to trust in the intelligence of the general readership to determine what amount of that ball of mud hit me, and how much of it flew back into your own face.


Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 19, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles, I don't care about your comments on START because you have no credibility whatsoever.

I'd rather know WHY you perpetuate lies.

Why are you a liar?

Is it your pathology? Are you that insecure? Are you that emotionally immature that you have to lie to make your point? You don't know enough about how reality works, so you have to show us all the level of your psychoses by concocting some fraudulent fantasy? Is that it?

See, most healthy individuals learn at an early age that lying is wrong. There is something about YOU -- maybe your upbringing, your parents, your education, etc -- that has allowed being untruthful to people to be permissible in your eyes, or even behavior to be encouraged.

Let me remind you what your kindergarten teacher probably told you:

LYING IS WRONG.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"the government takeover of healthcare"

There we have THE LIE OF THE YEAR!

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

There we have it folks.

GoldenEagles is a LIAR.

Anyone who would rather perpetuate a lie than tell the truth about politics: A) cannot be trusted for one second and B) is working against the best interests of America and our representative democracy.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Ethan20 says, "All those... um... missile attacks. Yeah that's the ticket ... Idiot."

That is the classic Democrat perspective on missile defense. And this is the perspective that the Democrats have allowed into this treaty. Therefore, the treaty must not be ratifed.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 19, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The only reason MConnell is opposing START is because it is coming up under the Obama administration. McConnell would oppose a cancer cure if it came under Obama's watch. It has nothing to do with the merits of the treaty.

Posted by: lemondog | December 19, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Roger11 says, "He's already said that his main purpose is defeating Obama - ahead of jobs, national security and the healthcare for Americans. So nothing new here."

Defeating Obama is all about national security. Defeat Obama, and our national security is enhanced.

Defeating Obama is all about creating jobs. Defeat Obama, and our economy will improve, and job creation will return.

Defeating Obama is all about making health care better for the American people. Defeat Obama, and you can repeal the government takeover of healthcare, which is a giant step in the direction of removing a huge cancerous tumor from the free enterprise system. Talk about breast cancer. Obama's health care system is like a huge cancer upon the breast of the American free enterprise system. Let's remove it, before it destroys the whole breast.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 19, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) decided not to support START treaty."

You mean that punk McConnell. Reid supports it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) decided not to support START treaty.

May we know the reasons?
I think he owes us an explanation.

Posted by: dummy4peace | December 19, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"You, I and our children and their children NEED missile defense to save the world from missile attacks."

Yes, we must save the world from all those missile attacks!

All those... um... missile attacks. Yeah that's the ticket.

Idiot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

He's already said that his main purpose is defeating Obama - ahead of jobs, national security and the healthcare for Americans. So nothing new here.

Posted by: Roger11 | December 19, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Stop START.

The Russians state very clearly that their language in the New START treaty bans US missile defense: "Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding” (Russian Foreign Minister). President Obama is therefore lying when he tells Senators and Americans that the treaty will not restrict the US. It will restrict us because the Russians say they will cancel the treaty if we build missile defenses.

You, I and our children and their children NEED missile defense to save the world from missile attacks. Not just Russian missiles, for there are greater threats today: Iran will be stationing missiles in Venezuela which can hit the US. North Korean missiles can also hit the US; and such missiles can destroy many other nations.

STOP START. It only helps enemies of civilization by preventing any missile defense, including attacks on Washington DC by rogue nations.

The Senate voted not to remove the anti-defense language, so the whole treaty must be scrapped and renegotiated. A flawed treaty is worse than no treaty.

A treaty with only one nuclear-armed beligerant nation and which ignores the threats from all other such nations is a recipe for disaster.

STOP START.

Posted by: webmaster12 | December 19, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama believes homosexuals in the military will make the nation stronger. Of course, he is exactly wrong and upside down in that regard, not taking into account at all the equation of divine providence, and how thumbing ones nose at God is the worst thing possible for national security. And so, when Obama says that this treaty is good for America, well, he is reasoning from the same flawed foundation. You can bet that this treaty is as good for America as homosexuals in the military is good for America. The treaty should be rejected simply on that basis. And besides, for a party that has opposed missile defense from the beginning, hating the very idea of it, which the Democrat Party has done, it is not plausible that their hatred of missile defense is not embedded in this treaty. They believe their hatred for missile defense is wisdom, and they have certainly embedded their “wisdom” in this treaty. The Republicans understand this. And given the Democrat Party refusal to address these concerns, especially by voting down the amendment to remove the reference to Missile Defense in the preamble, they cannot support it. Missile defense is far more important to America's national security than is this treaty. The Republicans understand this. The Democrats do not.

Posted by: GoldenEagles
*****************************************
Starting a new arms race with missile defense as the centerpiece is just what we need, isn't it? Hell, we've got all this extra tax revenue to spare. Why not?

Speaking of God; I'm sure missile defense will receive His blessing. He's very much down with diverting scarce resources from humanitarian endeavors to building stuff for the purpose of blowing s*** up.

Also, thank you for informing us that approximately 70% of us are going to Hell for supporting the repeal of DADT. I suppose there is some consolation in knowing it will probably an upgraded Hell compared to the one reserved for people who presume to tell us what God thinks.

Posted by: st50taw | December 19, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious to see so many right wing freaks defending McConnell.

Hypocrites.

Posted by: solsticebelle | December 19, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse


Maybe if Congress agreed to add more pork to the Omnibus bill for the Great State of Kentucky like McConnell wanted in the first place, without all this overspending hullabaloo, the Senator might agree to the START Treaty.

He does have his priorities you know!


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | December 19, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell is a national disgrace. Anyone willing to play politics with not just foreign policy, but nuclear policy, for political gain with the tea-bagger republicans is a TRAITOR.
McConnell is not just un-American, he must be ANTI-American to play with an issue as important to our nation and world as this.
We're not talking about tax policy, or industry regulation, we're talking about nuclear security and a stable relationship with an opposing nuclear super-power.
True Americans, tea baggers included, should be horrified by this excuse for a man.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | December 19, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Once again, the Party of "No" proves that the only thing in the world it cares about... more than national security, is that they oppose the President at every turn. They'll make up a reason later.

This treaty is approved by the military, and by many high-ranking members of former republican presidential administrations. There is simply no rational reason to oppose it.

But the GOP is terrified that something might get done under President Obama, and if that means putting the nation at greater risk of nuclear war, they could not care less.

Pigs.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | December 19, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"Sen. Mitch McConnell 'cannot support' START treaty"

Well of course not! The military industrial complex needs another welfare payment for the retired generals.

Republicans agenda ... continue to inflate our debt and deficit in the name of national security.

Posted by: knjincvc | December 19, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Senator McConnell continues his treasonous behavior by placing politics over national security once again. Sadly too many of his fellow Republicans join him in his treasonous behavior as he continues his efforts to undermine President Obama at every opportunity.

McConnell and some of the folks posting here continue to prefer governing by ignorance over facts, rational thought, and analysis. I find it amazing that "Goldeneagles" can assert, presumably with a straight face (no pun intended) that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military is bad for America. Goldeneagles seems to ignore that gays have been serving in the military since the Revolution. He, or she, seems to forget that gays openly serve in just about every military force in the free world -- effectively and without harming the ability of their nations to defend themselves.

But why ever let the facts get in the way of ignorance and bigotry? That's the Republican way these days, and Abe Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave.

Posted by: dl49 | December 19, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

This is creepy, as are many of you who have posted above.

There are good reasons not to support the START treaty, and sensible people can disagree on whether it is in this nation's interest. I'm absolutely confident that Sen. McConnell was willing to discuss his reasons for not supporting the treaty, but the Washington Post, typically, has declined to perform that standard function of a "news" organization, and instead has opted to present the mere information that Sen. McConnell opposes the treaty as "news". This, and the commentators above, are illustrative of the depths to which political debate in this country has sunk.

Posted by: mmwatch | December 19, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama believes homosexuals in the military will make the nation stronger. Of course, he is exactly wrong and upside down in that regard, not taking into account at all the equation of divine providence, and how thumbing ones nose at God is the worst thing possible for national security. And so, when Obama says that this treaty is good for America, well, he is reasoning from the same flawed foundation. You can bet that this treaty is as good for America as homosexuals in the military is good for America. The treaty should be rejected simply on that basis. And besides, for a party that has opposed missile defense from the beginning, hating the very idea of it, which the Democrat Party has done, it is not plausible that their hatred of missile defense is not embedded in this treaty. They believe their hatred for missile defense is wisdom, and they have certainly embedded their “wisdom” in this treaty. The Republicans understand this. And given the Democrat Party refusal to address these concerns, especially by voting down the amendment to remove the reference to Missile Defense in the preamble, they cannot support it. Missile defense is far more important to America's national security than is this treaty. The Republicans understand this. The Democrats do not.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 19, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Mitch, so much for Country First. Oh, I forgot your primary job is to defeat Obama instead of protecting the nation.

Posted by: PeaceAmerica | December 19, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The fact that there even is a debate over the START Treaty is really sad. And is shows that if the Right-wing noise machine decides to demonize something, it will go all out even if there is no rational justification in the world. I swear if Jesus of Nazareth came back and said to the world that the Democrats had a better plan, Sean Hannity would be on the air that night saying "who does this Jesus guy think he is?"
Anyway, regarding START, the Republicans want to run out the clock on this session so they can ratify it in the next Congress and claim that this important national security measure was bi-partisan, and they can get some of the credit, or all of the credit if you watch Fox News. These are people who think that hurting President Obama is more important than anything else. Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush (among others) say we should ratify this treaty, and Mitch McConnell will not go along with it. What other conclusion could one draw? I'd like to think someday they will pay a political price for this sort of behavior, but who can tell as the American people are pretty detached from this sort of thing.

Posted by: Scubergmu | December 19, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The fact that there even is a debate over the START Treaty is really sad. And is shows that if the Right-wing noise machine decides to demonize something, it will go all out even if there is no rational justification in the world. I swear if Jesus of Nazareth came back and said to the world that the Democrats had a better plan, Sean Hannity would be on the air that night saying "who does this Jesus guy think he is?" Anyway, regarding START, the Republicans want to run out the clock on this session so they can ratify it in the next Congress and claim that this important national security measure was bi-partisan, and they can get some of the credit, or all of the credit if you watch Fox News. These are people who think that hurting President Obama is more important than anything else. Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush (among others) say we should ratify this treaty, and Mitch McConnell will not go along with it. What other conclusion could one draw? I'd like to think someday they will pay a political price for this sort of behavior, but who can tell as the American people are pretty detached from this sort of thing.

Posted by: Scubergmu | December 19, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell hates America. How about that?

Posted by: Aerowaz | December 19, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Good ole Mitch, willing to place our national security at risk just to make the president look bad. That's a Republican for you. Never mind that many Republicans, at least those not trying to play political games, strongly support this treaty. Just watched Count Down to Zero, which was about nuclear proliferation, and the very real danger of a rogue state or terrorist group getting hold of a nuclear bomb or material to make one. It was sobering to say the least. This treaty is a vital step toward eventually ridding the world of these horrible weapons and making sure they don't get in the hands of the wrong people. To vote against the START treaty simply to hurt the president is incredibly reckless and irresponsible.

Posted by: ggwalt | December 19, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I think Ft Campbell Kentucky needs to be closed.

Posted by: Maddogg | December 19, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company