Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:38 AM ET, 12/21/2010

GOP obstruction made START a White House win

By Adam Serwer

Politico's Laura Rozen and Josh Gerstein report that despite the frivolous obstruction of Republicans in the Senate, New START looks poised for ratification. That has Republicans grumbling about President Obama's success in the lame duck session. Here's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"Our top concerns should be the safety and security of Americans, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year.... Americans have had more than enough of artificial timelines set by politicians eager for attention. They want us to focus on their concerns, not ours.... It is unfortunate that something as important as the Senate's consideration of a treaty like this one was truncated in order to meet another arbitrary deadline or the wish list of the liberal base."

The treaty was signed in April and is 17 pages long -- hardly a tough slog for a U.S. senator and a staff of experts. McConnell's comments about New START being part of the "wish list for the liberal base" are absurd. Let's take a moment to reflect on how extending a treaty first negotiated by President Ronald Reagan and signed by President George H.W. Bush suddenly became a liberal triumph. 

Ratifying START will ensure that the U.S. can monitor Russia's nuclear stockpile, preserve the reset in relations and show the world that Obama still has juice at home -- but, before now, strategic arms reduction wasn't considered an exclusively "liberal" policy goal, and it probably shouldn't be.

Early in the Obama administration, Senate Republicans settled on a strategy of total procedural obstruction. That strategy worked in the sense that it turned the most mundane processes of government into bitter fights -- before the Obama administration, Congress had never failed to extend unemployment insurance when unemployment was above seven percent.

The problem is, the New START treaty is about as controversial as a tuna salad sandwich. Not only has the current military leadership and every living Republican Secretary of State endorsed it, but former Republican national security stalwarts such as Brent Scowcroft are "baffled" by the GOP's decision to obstruct ratification. New START is also popular -- a CNN poll from November shows three quarters of Americans support ratifying the treaty

If New START is ratified, the only reason it'll be considered an Obama victory is because Republicans decided to oppose it without any real reason for doing so. If the Senate had simply ratified the treaty without any fuss, Obama might have gotten a few days of positive press, but it wouldn't have been treated as a major political success. Because Senate Republicans turned ratification into a huge partisan brawl, a Democratic president renewing an agreement with Russia designed by Republican presidents now looks like a massive victory for the administration.

Republicans have only themselves to blame here. If they had been more focused on the substance of New START, and less worried about humiliating the president or instinctively rejecting anything he proposes, the White House wouldn't have anything to brag about.

Adam Serwer is a staff writer at The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

By Adam Serwer  | December 21, 2010; 10:38 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Conservative bloggers agree: Haley Barbour is toast

Comments

Why do Republicans hate the U.S. military and our country's national security?

It's bizarre and senseless.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 21, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

the whining of the Democrats is as music to the ears.

they are all undies in a wad over the fact that Republicans now have enough votes to act exactly as the Democrats did during the Bush years.

the scorched earth, no holds barred, politeness and probity be darned approach taken by congressional Democrats and their lackies on the left lowered the bar on political behavior.

And to quote one of Mr Obama's BFF's "Now those chickens have come home to roost."

The Democrats can whine about hardball but they seem to have a hard time facing facts: the Republicans in the congress weren't sent there to compromise, they were sent there to confront.

so, by all means, whine on my children. You sowed, now you reap. You made this bed and adulthood requires that you lie in it in silence. The current environment in DC is a result of your behavior, none other.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Thus is another zombie lie born, "something as important as the Senate's consideration of a treaty like this one was truncated in order to meet another arbitrary deadline or the wish list of the liberal base".

Repeat endlessly on Fox News and "report" (with refutation for the first 2 times and without refutation thereafter, forever)in the Washington Post.

Posted by: grooft | December 21, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

On the good side, it shows that at least a few republicans have decided to not be total obstructionists when the security of America is at stake. I find that oddly reassuring.

Posted by: wvng | December 21, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, too cute by half....

I think the GOP has another problem, though, and that is how they are being viewed around the world by our allies as well as our foes. If they really think that no one is watching, and taking stock of their behavior, they are sadly mistaken.

As I pointed out yesterday with the NYT article, the Russians have made clear, "take it or leave it." They are not interested in reopening negotiations.

This treaty is pretty much a big yawn. It's not a breakthrough and it's not controversial. It has some modest reductions, and gets inspections back on track. And it lays the base for continuing negotiations with the Russians on other fronts.

That the GOP (Grumpy Old Pouters) would politicize this ratification with their lame excuses about being tired (Lindsay Graham yesterday), and it being so close to Christmas (Kyl and DeMint last week) is showing the world that they are unserious and childish about world security and foreign policy. And that could bring difficulties for them on the international stage in the future should they actually get another of their folks elected to the WH.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 21, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that Tom Coburn is an MD, and claims to be Pro-Life, and yet he is perfectly willing to kill the sick 9/11 First Responders.

From ThinkProgress.com

"Coburn Will Block 9/11 First Responders Bill, Potentially Killing Its Chance Of Passage

Pressure has been mounting on Republicans to relax their opposition to a bill to would provide health benefits to 9/11 first responders after Senate Republicans unanimously filibustered it earlier this month, but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) told Politico yesterday that he will likely block the measure yet again. Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said last night that the Senate must act immediately to complete the bill in order to allow enough time for the House to pass the same version before Congress recesses for Christmas. “[I]if you’re going to send us anything that we need to deal with, send it, frankly, by [Tuesday],” Hoyer told The Hill. "

Posted by: Liam-still | December 21, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Adam, now you've done it. You've gone and publicly identified tuna fish sandwiches as something important to liberals. I'm going to hold you responsible when Republicans start trying to ban them from schools and government cafeterias because they are un-American and a threat to national security.

Posted by: dal20402 | December 21, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Shows that the Republicans are willing to sell out the security of the country for political gain, just as they have been selling out the economic security of the country over the past two years. They sink the US and the middle class all for political gain. Sick stuff.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 21, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The GOP leadership is on a course of self-destruction, which is fine by me. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out they have handed Obama victories and turned the tides in a few weeks that took Clinton a year to do after the 1994 midterms. The key here is that the GOP has decided to appeal to the dumbest Americans. The are pro-child obesity, go against their foreign policy and military experts, deny 9/11 first responders medical assistance and the list goes on.

at this rate 2012 should be a landslide for Obama.

The GOP mantra has become "Party First, Country Second"

Posted by: rcc_2000 | December 21, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

OT

Ethan, if you're still around, check this out:

Shep Smith Names Every GOPer Who Wouldn't Talk 9/11 Bill With Him

Fox News' Shep Smith is continuing to hammer Republican senators who wouldn't pass the 9/11 first responders bill, this time calling out by name those who wouldn't appear on his show to discuss the issue.

"We called a lot of Republicans today who are in office at the moment," he said Monday afternoon. "These are the ones who told us 'no': Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint, Enzi, Grassley, Kyl, McConnell, Sessions, Baucus, Gregg, and Inhofe. No response from Bunning, Coburn, Ensign, Graham, Hatch, and McCain."

"Why does no one want to talk about this?" Smith asked.

Instead, Smith had former New York Gov. George Pataki on, whom he asked: "Republicans wanted to get this tax thing done first, they wanted pressure on the White House. This was an issue they were using toward that end, without question. Was that too far?"

Pataki demurred a little, arguing for the importance of passing the tax cuts before they expire on January 1, but added that now is the "right time" to pass the 9/11 first responders bill.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/shep-smith-names-every-goper-who-wouldnt-come-on-his-show-to-talk-911-first-responders-bill.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 21, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Liam, Sue, assume arguendo that clawrence has read the 9-11 bill correctly. Everyone who needs coverage would be covered if the bill provided secondary insurance rather than primary. But if it is primary insurance, then some health insurer or WC insurer is off the hook while having collected premiums.

Again, if the bill provided secondary coverage, if it said the coverage kicks in for otherwise uncovered medical and health expenses, it would cover all the persons denied other coverage. If it is primary, it pays without regard to exhaustion of other coverage.


i have not read it and clawrence is certain the coverage is primary. That would be a serious flaw. I do not have time to read it. I wish I did right now.

I like the concept and I think it is justified as a national defense expenditure, but I would not like it to be gratuitously wasteful. I also have not examined QB1's contention about the questionable matters covered. Again, I like the concept, but to the extent conservative objections are about waste within the concept, then I am listening.

I understand that when conservatives do not like the concept and think there is waste within its application that it is easy to focus upon the conceptual disagreement. It is always more difficult to read the bill, and deal with the devils in the details. But it is worth doing.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 21, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

though the tax bill was a lost for obama, and DADT was repealed because of the senate and house, START will be an actual Obama win.

let's hope he get's one.

Posted by: newagent99 | December 21, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, suzie, it is extremely important that America be liked by the bankrupt Euros. I know I sleep better at night knowing that French peasants, when they are not demonstrating for more government largesse, think highly of Mr Obama and his Democrat lackies.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"Last night on Fox’s Red Eye, former Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee urged the Senate to pass the bill immediately, telling the moving story of a friend of his from Texas who volunteered to come to New York City after 9/11, spent a year working there, and is now dying from cancer he contracted while on the job. “There are people who need medical care right now, and frankly, the clock is running out on them. Their lives are fading away, even as we sit here talking about it,” Huckabee said.

Likewise, former Republican New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani urged Congress to pass the bill straight away, noting the heroism these first responders showed in days and weeks after 9/11. "

Posted by: Liam-still | December 21, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Skippy,

It is important that the US be seen as negotiating in good faith, and not acting like petulant children or big whiners. That has nothing to do with being liked. It's about being respected. Big difference...but, then..well never mind...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 21, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"Liam, Sue, assume arguendo that clawrence has read the 9-11 bill correctly."

I know you're Mr. Moderate and all, but this is retarded.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 21, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Well said, Mark in Austin. I believe you have captured my objection: is the bill wasteful?

when it was pointed out yesterday that the problem of coverage resulted from the Worker's comp bureau deny that certain issues were work related, the entire thing seemed like a gift rather than an attempt to address a need.

Had the bureau found that the clinical issues were in fact work related, but required additional fundage because of the massive liability that might be represented, I would be much more amenable to passage.

Also, the Democrats must come to realize the new reality in DC. Everything they want will come at a price. That's just the way it is now. They won't like it, but it is exactly the tactic they used during the Bush years.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Why did these infantile antics take two years to backfire?

Posted by: caothien9 | December 21, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

mark,

From what I understand, primary insurance is not in play any longer, since these people are disabled and don't have jobs.

Workers comp is not kicking in because they are fighting claims of workplace injuries, and so far, have been successful in denying claims.

That's the nutshell as I understand it.

Whether or not the states (mostly NY) are fighting the WC carriers, is a good question that I can't answer. If they are, that litigation could take years.

In the meantime, all these disabled and sick people are stuck in the middle.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 21, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the Republicans could go on a scavenger hunt in Baghdad, to find those billions of dollars, in cash, that they shipped over there on skids.

They should go locate all that cash, and bring it back to pay for the urgent health care needs of the sick 9/11 first responders.

We know that the Republicans will want to rush to retrieve those skids of cash, because they hate waste, fraud, and bad accounting practices.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 21, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD, can we still have dinner together next time I am in N'awlins?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 21, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

snicker snicker. Only in the ComPost can a uberleftist President adopt a republican President's policy at the 11th hour after badmouthing it for a year and have it called a victory for that lefty.

Posted by: theduck6 | December 21, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Sure

Posted by: DDAWD | December 21, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Republicans must hate our freedom if they do not support our military.

Posted by: theAnswerIs42 | December 21, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Hey, skipsailing28, it's "lackeys," not "lackies." If you're going to hurl insults, at least spell them correctly.

Posted by: ajsmithva | December 21, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"...i have not read it and clawrence is certain the coverage is primary."

Not true, I didn't bother before, but since you are still on it, no. It is only to cover what other policies and entitlements do not, for example copays, rescission, exceeded maximums, etc.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 21, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

mark,

From what I understand, primary insurance is not in play any longer, since these people are disabled and don't have jobs.

Workers comp is not kicking in because they are fighting claims of workplace injuries, and so far, have been successful in denying claims.

That's the nutshell as I understand it.

Whether or not the states (mostly NY) are fighting the WC carriers, is a good question that I can't answer. If they are, that litigation could take years.

In the meantime, all these disabled and sick people are stuck in the middle.

Posted by: suekzoo1
========================
The Republicans are quite happy with that.

Once dead they cannot complain anymore.

9/11 was a Neocon Plot
and
they are making sure all that can finger them will be dead.
or
will be assasinated

Posted by: monstermash1 | December 21, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Sue, the disability comment makes sense to me, as does the WC comment - but if a person had long term disability insurance [I do] and was in the prospective pool [I'm not] and had either his claim denied or his coverage exhausted then the bill could have covered her without being "primary". It also could have provided immediate coverage for denied WC claims and been subrogated to recover the funds from the WC carrier, rather than have had no claim over for reimbursement.

Are we talking past each other? DDAWD assumes, I think, that clawrence must be wrong. I have no way to make that assumption and I have seen carelessly drafted legislation in my life.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 21, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Those Republicans can always be counted on to make sure that no tax dollars get wasted, or stolen.

Billions over Baghdad

Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in U.S. currency—much of it belonging to the Iraqi people—was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam's palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled. "

Use the link to read the entire article.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710

"

Posted by: Liam-still | December 21, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I just saw shrink's comment and I accept his view as accurate. Thanks.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 21, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

the scorched earth, no holds barred, politeness and probity be darned approach taken by congressional Democrats and their lackies on the left lowered the bar on political behavior.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Ummm? Really? This is really what you believe? I'd strongly suggest going back to research this ludicrous statement.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | December 21, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Are we talking past each other? DDAWD assumes, I think, that clawrence must be wrong. I have no way to make that assumption and I have seen carelessly drafted legislation in my life.

Posted by: mark_in_austin"

I'm basing it off his so-called careful reading of the ACA and concluding that it is rife with death panels.

He might be right, but it is downright idiotic to believe anything he says.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 21, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

How about just offset the cost of the 9/11 bill by repealing ethanol subsidies?

Posted by: jnc4p | December 21, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Uhhh thducks6? You must get your history from Fox News, don't you?

The START treaty was negotiated for over a year before it was signed last April. It's a 17 page document. That's more than enough time for the educationally challenged to actually read & comprehend.

The problem is that Republicans put party considerations above national security. The United States has not had inspectors on the ground in Russia since the beginning of this year. This treaty puts them back.

So before you go slandering President Obama for doing exactly what President Reagan, President GHW Bush had done before him....read a little. Republicans wanted to block this so President Obama wouldn't get a victory. If that isn't treasonous it is surely sad....as are your ranting at clouds.

Posted by: kindness1 | December 21, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Regarding that 1.1 trillion dollar omnibus bill, that Mich McConnell recently blocked;

Contained in it is the following:

"$667.7 billion would be provided for Defense appropriations, $75.6 billion for Military Construction-Veterans’ Affairs spending, and $43.5 billion for Homeland Security spending."


Does anyone really expect that when The Republicans are talking about cutting government spending, they are going to do anything about the major portion of the annual budgets that get spent on the military and intel agencies. Just about as much as the rest of the world's nations, combined.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 21, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The Obama, lame ducks are about to be put out of our misery, permanently. Then they will be Obama, dead ducks.

They have managed to lob a few more, stink bombs at America with the help of the remaining RINOs, in congress.

But, this is the most hated, lame duck session in American history and is another nail in the coffin of the Obamanation.

That's the only good thing about it.

There's really nothing else.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 21, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Isn't the whole 9/11 think over the funding? Regardless, they should pay to cover the expenses of the 9/11 workers and then have the government be reimbursed -- with interest -- as the workers comp claims are resolved. Those cases that are found to be unrelated to service can be resolved later. This is essentially no different than the process vets go through to have injuries linked to service. there's multiple levels of appeals for denied claims and a special court

however, i do think it's time we stop start throwing money around every time someone says 9/11 -- that leads to stuff like TSA abuses and metro doing random checks on people for no reason.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 21, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, let's talk about "in good faith".

Your position appears to be this:
The Russians can say "take it or leave", but the Americans can't.

I have no doubt that the Russians clearly understand that the concept of Advice and Consent is embedded in our constitution. they must know, after years of doing negotiations with us that a treaty must pass muster with the senate. That's just the way it is.

Now the left seeks to limit the options of the duly elected and constitutionally empowered Senators for the sake of the Russians fragile feelings.

Hardly.

As I said before you folks had best get used to this, everything you want comes at a price now, and some of what you want you simply won't get anymore.

The Democrats played hard ball for the entire Bush admin. Shall we do a recap of the less than kind thing Senator Obama uttered when he bothered to appear in the chamber?

So spare us the new found righteousness. I simply don't believe that there was never an instance wherein Chuck Schumer and co held something "hostage" on President Bush.

Once again, "do as I say not as I do" is the liberal mantra.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

hey, ajsmithva,

If all you've got is mispellings, you got nothing.

And I wasn't insulting anyone. I was merely pointing out the lay of the land in America today.

Sorry you don't like the facts but hey.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

liam-still, do you not perceive the internal contradiction in your own position?
=====================
Does anyone really expect that when The Republicans are talking about cutting government spending, they are going to do anything about the major portion of the annual budgets that get spent on the military and intel agencies. Just about as much as the rest of the world's nations, combined.
=========================

You yourself pointed out that the Republicans thwarted a bill that contained a significant amount of spending on America's defense. Then you say that the Republicans, who as you noted just refused to go along with a bill that would spend billions on defense, won't seriously consider DOD spending.

You must be just so angry that you can longer entertain a cohesive position. I hope that a Merry Christmas will soothe your jangled nerves.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Skippy,

Stay tuned and watch the Republicans try to slash social programs, but fight for more and more spending on defense. That is how they have operated for decades. You are either an intentional deceiver, or a turnip that just fell off the truck.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 21, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

@McConnell-

"Our top concerns should be the safety and security of Americans, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year"

The jokes just write themselves.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 21, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Mark, clawrence has a history of lying.

Is skipsailing umemployed? He doesn't seem to do anything all day other than fling rabid froth and spittle on this board.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 21, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing is that Repubs even face primary shouting over START from the Tea Baggers. So the Repubs kind of blew it on this one. They gin up opposition to a treaty for political reasons that they actually support. Now their tea baggers believe the lies they have been spinning about the treaty. So once GOP Senators turn around to vote for it, they might get clobbered by their ginned-up base. Too fun.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/134621-gop-senators-up-in-12-ready-to-back-start-treaty

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 21, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

A telling quote: "Early in the Obama administration, Senate Republicans settled on a strategy of total procedural obstruction." And of course when asked what his top priority was, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell didn't say jobs or economic growth or national security. He said it was denying the president a second term.

Spite and anger, but no ideas.

Posted by: AnotherHagman | December 21, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The modern republican 'mind' -- or what passes for it -- simply cannot tolerate a fairly-won Democratic majority or president -- especially a black one. So they are naturally going to do everything they can to destroy the presidency, foreign policy, and the country.

In most places this would be called treason and treated as such.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Smart analysis, Adam. I hadn't thought of the debate this way.

Posted by: mercerreader | December 21, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I see skippy and battledoof have ridden in on the idiot mobile to offer Fauxnews talking points...

Posted by: LABC | December 21, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

If the Russians say "take it or leave it" "no changes", I say we should leave it. Although the treaty is meaningless as far as weapons are concerned if we accept under the Russian's take it or leave it attitude makes us look weak in the eyes of the world.

Posted by: nychap44 | December 21, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Funny to hear mconnell whine about not doing things for political victories since he has publicly announced that his only goal is just that. Come hail[sic] or high water he will stand in the way of anything no matter how good for the United States if it is a political black eye for the President.

Actually the string of victories for the WH are further proof that republicons were just playing games with the welfare of the nation for political points during the past year. All these things they stopped from coming to a vote for months are passing easily with strong bi-partisan support. It was no tthat the bills were bad, it was that republkcons held us all hostage for their political gain. And unfortunately the lesson they take from this past mid term is that it is better for the republicon party to do that than to do what is good for the United States and our people.

Posted by: John1263 | December 21, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are like a dog chasing his tail. Obstruction has them spinning in circles going nowhere and all who witness it, laughing. Republicans like to shoot first and aim later. So they eventually kill the wrong people just to prove they are not afraid to pull the trigger. The first responders should not be victims of these carelessly fired bullets of obstruction. Yet that Socialist, Gubment health care works just fine for all the newly elected Republicans in Washington. You Ditto heads didn't even hold em accountable. Not one of them refused it they actually complained that it took to long to get. Why are those on the right so Mindless?!! At least be principled! GEEEZ!

Posted by: minco_007 | December 21, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Nothing pleases me more than watching Mitch McConnell go up in flames. It is finally clear to everyone the number one Republican motive is to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct at the detriment of all else.

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | December 21, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Why are NO reporters talking about the decades long republicon strategy of "starve the beast?" republicons set out in their vile think tanks to construct a strategy to destroy the programs they could not get rid of politically because they were so successful and tehrefore popular. The idea was to bankrupt the nation and then claim that now that the nation is bankrupt we cannot afford social security and medicare.

Posted by: John1263 | December 21, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

liam-still I certainly expect no less from them. the Federal government was constituted to provide for the physical safety of the citizens, not to confiscate money from the producers and shower it on the non producers.

So I will disappointed if they don't do what you predict.

If the rest of you don't like the facts of life in DC now, I have no sympathy. Let me quote yet another Obama BFF "Elections have consequences".

Here they come boys and girls. Welcome to hard ball. If you can't stand the inside fast balls, step out of the batter's box.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1 said" As I pointed out yesterday with the NYT article, the Russians have made clear, "take it or leave it." They are not interested in reopening negotiations."
------------------
We are all glad you pointed it out yesterday. I had also read it in the NY Times, but it is always useful to have your confirmation. :)

But, it might not be true. The Russians may be bluffing and if they are bluffing it would make no sense for them to say right now, "We are bluffing." The whole point of bluffing is that you don't say, "We are bluffing."

North Korea turned out to have been bluffing about South Korea's military exercise, but they sure did not say it before - they are not even saying it now, although we all know that they were.

But Serwer does appear to be right. The treaty should be confirmed, it probably will be confirmed and the Republicans have only shot themselves in the foot, politically speaking.

Maybe they need to realize, "It is nice to block Obama, but the interests of the Republican party (never mind the nation) take priority". :)

Posted by: rjpal | December 21, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton:

Classic Republican projection.

Of which we've seen A LOT of, since 2009. Wonder what happened then to cause such an epidemic???

Posted by: CTVoter | December 21, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Mark in Austin. I believe you have captured my objection: is the bill wasteful?

when it was pointed out yesterday that the problem of coverage resulted from the Worker's comp bureau deny that certain issues were work related, the entire thing seemed like a gift rather than an attempt to address a need.

Had the bureau found that the clinical issues were in fact work related, but required additional fundage because of the massive liability that might be represented, I would be much more amenable to passage.

Posted by: skipsailing28

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

As much as lefties like Serwer try to spin the issue like an Iranian centrifuge this post shows that there are legitimate reasons to oppose a bill and treaty sometimes.

Posted by: bbface21 | December 21, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing is an intentional deceiver, that claims to work in some kind of health care, or own some kind of business, depending on teh topic being discussed.

He used to hang out in Right Matters, but either it got too hot for him there, or he is out of a job and bored now.

He has always had nothing but insults, drivels, and lots of froth.

Posted by: taroya | December 21, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

If the Russians say "take it or leave it" "no changes", I say we should leave it. Although the treaty is meaningless as far as weapons are concerned if we accept under the Russian's take it or leave it attitude makes us look weak in the eyes of the world.

Posted by: nychap44
============================
But they are not saying "take it or leave it" about something they unilaterally proposed. They are saying it about something which was already agreed on by BOTH sides.

They are saying in effect, "You made a deal, now stay with it." Keeping one's word is not the same as being weak.

Posted by: rjpal | December 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"the Federal government was constituted to provide for the physical safety of the citizens, not to confiscate money from the producers and shower it on the non producers.'

lol... propaganda works so well on the rubes. The 'producers' -- like the hedge fund managers that blew up the world economic system? that the serfs can be taught to throw themselves under a bus for their overlords is very amusing. the very wealthy in this country -- who are bleeding the middle class dry -- are laughing themselves sick that rightwing idiots are so concerned with their welfare that they would sacrifice their own futures.

There is no bottom to the stupid.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 21, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

rjpal, you must not understand the constitution then. the president and his admin cannot agree to something and guarantee it will be accepted by the congress. Our founders, in their infinite wisdom granted the Senate the right to advice and consent. Every treaty signed must be approved. That's just the way it is.

Surely the russians understand this. Certainly Putin was exposed to this during his KGB 101 courses in the good old Soviet Union.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Republican delay and obstruct tactics have backfired with a big smokey bang.

Had the GOP dealt with this treaty responsibl­y, in the early summer, it would have gone nearly unnoticed by the punditocra­cy and public at large. A net political zero for the Obama Administra­tion.

Only because START was on the verge of not passing by the end of this session has it become big news. As the GOP is learning, the public does not like national security being compromise­d while they play political games.

Now, with passage of START looking likely, the President is positioned for a substantia­l political win. With the Tax deal and DADT wrapped up, the MSM will posit that Obama's political comeback has begun.

Posted by: heycoachb | December 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

You liberal sycophants always fail to see the big picture. The Republican strategy against the flaming, leftist, lame duck Obamacrats is to make them MORE like conservative Republicans. It seems to be working, for the most part. Of course all stratigic plans never work at the 100% level. That never going to happen.

For the liberal flamers to actually want something with Reagan's and Bush's names all over it is a small miracle. Obama has become Reagan dark and his fawning, media worshippers are bragging about it. Who would have imagined this just two years ago.

Score another one for the G.O.P.

Oh, and the defeat of the DREAM ACT was a double victory for Republicans. Obama has deported a gazillion illegals in the past two years in an effort to drum up support for his big amnesty schemes. The joke's on him. He got NO payoff for his deportation ploy.

Now Hispanics are having histrionics over the big Democrat FAILURE to deliver the goods. They see the Democrat party favoring homosexuals over them and it is true.

Hey, that makes the defeat of the DREAM ACT a triple victory.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 21, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Just Say No" should have been dismissed as stupid and bad for the nation just on its (lack of) merits alone, but two things have happened that weaken the strategy, though not for the right reasons.

First, Obama has shown willingness to work with Republicans, even when he doesn't really need to. Second, Congress clearly left a lot of things that leaders thought would be easy to pass (9/11 First Responder Health Care, New START) that JSN doesn't really work on.

I for one, am amazed that JSN has worked this well so far. America, you do realize that Republicans just fought to cut taxes for the rich while cutting unemployment benefits at Christmastime, right? Are you paying attention?

Posted by: joshlct | December 21, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Why are republicans so emotional? They seem hysterical and angry and oh, so, shrill? What could be causing them so much angst? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: underhill | December 21, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

It's only a win in the land of political pundits. START 2 ratification won't help the President win reelection.

Posted by: moebius22 | December 21, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=========================
lol... propaganda works so well on the rubes. The 'producers' -- like the hedge fund managers that blew up the world economic system? that the serfs can be taught to throw themselves under a bus for their overlords is very amusing. the very wealthy in this country -- who are bleeding the middle class dry -- are laughing themselves sick that rightwing idiots are so concerned with their welfare that they would sacrifice their own futures.

There is no bottom to the stupid.

==========

What, exactly are you talking about?

I'll tell you exactly what I'm talking about: transfer payments. The act of the government confiscating money from one person and giving it to another (after taking their skim of course)

The greedy thieves on wall street can do a lot of things, but they cannot jail me for failing to pay them on demand. The government can.

Further, we paid an enormous sum to our various governments to protect us from those greedy thieves and they failed us. Massively. Only someone unaware of Einstein's definition of insanity would believe that doing more of the same, that is relying on the failed government, will somehow provide a different result.

Tell me fiona honey, why is it that Chris Dodd didn't run for re election. Is it possible that his perfidy became so well known that he rightly concluded he could not prevail?

And what of Mr Franks, who has been witness to one scandal after another and yet continues to run us into the ground. Don't you find it interesting that he finally admitted to Larry Kudlow that the Congress failed in its oversight mission?

No sweetie, trying to change the subject is a ruse. Clarly you have nothing of merit to say. It is obvious that you are familiar with the bottom of stupid. No doubt you bounced when you struck it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 21, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

rjpal, you must not understand the constitution then. the president and his admin cannot agree to something and guarantee it will be accepted by the congress. Our founders, in their infinite wisdom granted the Senate the right to advice and consent. Every treaty signed must be approved. That's just the way it is.

Surely the russians understand this. Certainly Putin was exposed to this during his KGB 101 courses in the good old Soviet Union.

Posted by: skipsailing28
___________________
you're both right. the point is that the republicans are just posturing with no particular place to go, and the Russians are just signalling that they aren't in the mood to play the game. the treaty was not negotiated from a democrat point of view, everyone was on board, precisely because senate approval was necessary. we almost never see an arms treaty renegotiated after senate rejection or amendment because it's simply no way to negotiate, Constitution or not. Put yourself in another nation's shoes. You spend years negotiating with a country that tells you its negotiators have bipartisan support, only to have the nation come back and say, ooops, we can't get what we negotiated approved after all. doesn't work in the long or short run, so we negotiate with both side of the aisle on board.

like I said, this is all silly posturing on the repub side, and will all be over probably today when the responsible republicans join the dems and ratify it. For goodness sake, every Republican who isn't currently in the Senate supports it, including Scocrowft and every Republican Sec State that's still alive.

Posted by: JoeT1 | December 21, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

This treaty also saves a bucket load of money by not requiring the US to replace 1000 or so aging Nukes we have no need for. Those things cost at least 100 millions each, since each of them are little space ships.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | December 21, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans have only themselves to blame here. If they had been more focused on the substance of New START, and less worried about humiliating the president or instinctively rejecting anything he proposes, the White House wouldn't have anything to brag about."

Well said, I said something similar on another message board that this could have been considered a bipartisan victory but McConnell and others managed to turn it into an Obama victory. This is a perfect example of turning the knee jerk obstructionism of Senate and House Republicans against them, something that should have been done a very long time ago. Next up, the 9/11 First Responders Bill that Republicans have getting major heat for obstructing.

Does anyone else sense a major change in this White House over the past few weeks? They are (finally) out-maneuvering their obstructionist opponents and have somehow managed to dilute the fierce partisanship of this country. A welcome change imho.


Posted by: cjpotter19 | December 21, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing,

I notice how you leave out the GOP's wrong doings in your rant but only can name the Dems wrong doings. Since i only have 2800 characters to use on this blog it isnt nearly enough to show how crooked the GOP has been in just the past 10 years. Oh and the Republicans were not sent there to confront, they were sent their to safe guard the rich. Funny how you cant see that. But after reading both of your posts it seems you dont have a full grip on reality.

Posted by: rharring | December 21, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Sargent: You no doubt believed the Nov 2 Republican landslide was also a win for Obama.

Posted by: bbwk80a | December 21, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Good for the GOP! No one is entitled to anything. You want help? Pay for it. That includes Congressional pensions, paychecks, and health care. From now on, Congressmen should get minimum wage, minimal health care, and absolutely no pension. Practice what you preach.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | December 21, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

first the obstruction strategy gets us a health reform bill that would have been more centrist if repubs hadn't bet (incorrectly) that they could defeat it. Obama would have given them anything for a vote or two.

now they seem to be unnecessarily making everything look like an Obama victory indeed. the irony is rich.

Posted by: JoeT1 | December 21, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Their was nothing victorious for Obama in the defeat of the Dream Act, nor Reid's throwing out the first Omnibus spending bill. Nothing won when Federal judge Henry Hudson threw out the personal mandate of Obamacare. Nothing for Obama to cheer about when a majority 66% of Americans approve of Arizona's immigration law that Holder is suing the state over. All this demonstrates how at odds Obama is with the majority of American people.

When it is considered that Obama had initially a 60-40 senate majority to work with and a like majority in the House, what Mitch McConnell has accomplished in the way of retarding the rampant incrementalism of Democrat party pushed socialism is remarkable. Think what this man will forestall when he has more senators and a friendly House to work with. The battle of budget cuts will begin to bring spending more in line with revenue rather than these outrageous deficits Democrats and Obama have been running.

The 'Starve the Beast' strategy should be obvious to all, but is mistaken for obstructionism by most. The party of 'no' wants no more spending, less intrusive government, and the re-emergence of the individual to power over his/her government. A repulsive change to socialists, who believe government should control all, all of the time. Only government has the solutions to everything, according to Democrats.

Sorry, but Nov 2 repudiated this push. But as evidenced here, not all got it.

Posted by: bbwk80a | December 21, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

bbwk80a, everyone is laughing at you and your idiotic comments in here. keep it up. we all love watching a pea-brain talking.

Posted by: fmamstyle | December 21, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Further, we paid an enormous sum to our various governments to protect us from those greedy thieves and they failed us. Massively
______

Skip: The failure was intentional. People were put in key positions in the regulating agencies which were "business friendly" and whom left for jobs at the places they regulated immediately after leaving government. A few people spoke out and they were slandered and pushed out of the government (learn about who Elizabeth Warren is please). This intentional failure was based on a blind doctrine of "government is the problem." The fothcoming explosion was predicted in numerous places inlcuding our past history. Now we seem to be chosing to repeat those mistakes and very few people have the courgage to speak up. You should stop wasting your time calling Obama names and take the time to get a clear view of history so that our children don't have to repeat it.

Posted by: bob29 | December 21, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama wholeheartedly. I may not like some of the things he's done or the compromises he made but he's been very successful in many things and that's really what's eating the Republicans. He's also a far better President than the McCain could possibly have been.

They keep telling us that Nov 2nd was somehow a mandate like the 2000 election (which was a gift from the courts).

I don't see it that way, it was a good way to expose what the GOP is and has been about right along. Fueling the war machine, making the rich richer (including big oil which funds terrorists), decimating the lower and middle classes and keeping themselves in power.

FOX News will be working overtime to cover their tracks. After January 1st they will be campaigning wholeheartedly and swift-boating for 2012 but other than that the tax payer money that goes to paying the GOP congressional and senatorial salaries will be totally wasted and if they get their way they will be the only ones with health insurance and retirement benefits.

Maybe the people in this country are waking up to the reality that the GOP and the Tea Party are not in this game to help anyone but the people with the money to fuel their political ambitions.


Posted by: davidbronx | December 21, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Partisan hacks like Sargent are such useful tools of GOP politicians.

The GOP puts up fights on non-issues like START or DADT just so fools like Sargent can spend all of their time freaking out about them. Few Americans care about DADT and even less have even heard of the START treaty.

Super. Take your irrelevant "wins" while the GOP gets its way on every major issue. LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | December 21, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

bbwk80a, you are a blithering idiot. go amuse your manpussy with a sarah palin doll.

Posted by: fmamstyle | December 21, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"Why do Republicans hate the U.S. military and our country's national security?

It's bizarre and senseless.

Posted by: Ethan2010"

Speaking of bizarre and senseless. LOL

Sorry to tell you this cupcake, any poll will show you that Americans trust the GOP with national security far more than the Dems.

Get out of your silly bubble and rejoin us in reality.

Posted by: bobmoses | December 21, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Of course legislators only get to be legislators by being politicians first (bummer!). But, wow, think of the good that would get done if our me-first, party-first politicians actually realized that we sent them to Washington to legislate for us. OF COURSE they will represent their constituents and OF COURSE there will be ideological and regional differences (let the collective "DUH!"'s begin!). But if they didn't let political gamesmanship get in the way of the nation's business, they might be worth something a little more than an infinitesimally small fraction of what they're paid.

START is a case in point. I mean, Republicans from every Republican administration in recent history have voiced their support of it, yet McConnell and Kyl have got to grandstand and try to make political hay. Jerks. (And, yes, there are certainly examples of that having happened on the Dem side, too. That doesn't weaken the point here. This ISN'T a partisan issue).

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | December 21, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"bbwk80a, you are a blithering idiot. go amuse your manpussy with a sarah palin doll.

Posted by: fmamstyle"

Ahh. More idiotic, vulgar and hateful commentary from a "tolerant and intellectual" liberal. LOL

Hard to believe these really angry and nasty people can't get anyone to share their silly political views. They are so persuasive.

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

bbwk80a, everyone is laughing at you and your idiotic comments in here. keep it up. we all love watching a pea-brain talking.

Still waiting for your substantial rebuttal, fmamstyle?

I can do name calling too. But will wait for something factual to come from you, which hasn't shown up yet. Let's hear it fmamstyle, what do you have to say that's worthwhile?

Posted by: bbwk80a | December 21, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

fmamstyle: Are you chicano?

Posted by: bbwk80a | December 21, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm grateful for the nine GOP Senators who support START. You are right, those who were obstructive, from what they say mostly because they were angry at DADT repeal, did make it look as if the party as a whole was willing to politicize national security. Only those nine help us to know differently.

GOP obstruction on the first responders bill also makes it clear that Republicans are more interested in politics than they are in hurting people, even hurting people who responded bravely on 9/11.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 21, 2010 4:06 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 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell has himself become the absurdity. His operating principles have become obstruction, hypocrisy, and hopeless partisanship. Time to shut up and go home.

Posted by: jwatson2 | December 21, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I am no longer a fundamentalist Christian.
I was once a Presbyterian Deacon, and my older sister was a Missionary in Africa.
I am now an agnostic.

Why am I saying this?
Because, I simply cannot believe that ANYONE who supports the Current GOP can be a "Christian".

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 21, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

McConnell's resistance to ratification of Start 2 is a combination of protest against the cramming by Obama of its consideration into the limited lame duck session, and damage control that slows the process of pushing through other items on the Democratic wish list.

He' ready to put it all on the line regardless of how he personally comes out of this. He wants to get to the end of the 111th congress with minimal damage inflicted by the Democratic majority. Only a few more days, and well past Reid's original proclamation to end it by Dec 17. McConnell knows Reid can't be taken at his word.

Posted by: bbwk80a | December 21, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"If New START is ratified, the only reason it'll be considered an Obama victory is because Republicans decided to oppose it without any real reason for doing so. If the Senate had simply ratified the treaty without any fuss, Obama might have gotten a few days of positive press ..."

Bingo. Not even a few days. Half a day at most; the media was not interested in START until the GOP made it a point of attack.

Posted by: mypitts2 | December 21, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

McConnell seems incompetent.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 21, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

bbwk80a wrote:
McConnell's resistance to ratification of Start 2 is a combination of protest against the cramming by Obama of its consideration into the limited lame duck session, and damage control that slows the process of pushing through other items on the Democratic wish list.

He' ready to put it all on the line regardless of how he personally comes out of this. He wants to get to the end of the 111th congress with minimal damage inflicted by the Democratic majority. Only a few more days, and well past Reid's original proclamation to end it by Dec 17. McConnell knows Reid can't be taken at his word.
_______________________________

Creative take on this. Really. Not remotely close to reality, but creative nonetheless. I'm impressed. But I notice you didn't raise (more likely, regurgitate) any objections about the treaty itself . . . .

Unfortunately for you, there are at least 9 GOP senators (maybe more when the roll call is held) who think the treaty makes sense and that it makes sense to ratify it now. You may suppose that these senators just don't see the obvious virtue in the "damage control" you ascribe to McConnell's wisdom. On the other hand, maybe that's because there IS no virtue in this overtly and unnecessarily partisan ploy. Maybe that's because not everything needs to be cast in starkly (and, in this case, cynically) partisan terms. It used to be that politics stopped at the water's edge, but McConnell and Kyl know better (riiiiight . . . .). Apparently they're just too wise to agree with the many high-powered REPUBLICANS from previous administrations who support this.

Look, no rational person would claim that the Dems haven't had their cynically partisan moments. But compounding wrongs to make a right hasn't worked before, so why start now (get it, "start now???")???

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | December 21, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

GOP is behaving this way because everyone forgot how they were butchered in 2006 and 2008. I laugh at republicans always saying that government is the problem and then they die to become part of the same government for the last 25-30 years and still has not able to reform it.

Posted by: alpha076 | December 21, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh, the new Repubs in Congress will do plenty of compromising, skipsailing28. There's no other choice when there is divided government. And the polls says people want the Dems and Repubs to cooperate, in case they're not responsible enough to want that on their own. The Dems sure misread their mandate of 2008, the Repubs are showing plenty of signs of planning to do the same with their victory.

Posted by: newageblues | December 21, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

too bad we don't require at least a GED to vote.. Republicans would be extinct in no time like they should be if that was the case.

Posted by: cmsatown | December 21, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The people in the know Adm. Mullen and the joints chiefs want this done. Former secy of state all want this done. GOP senators with the knowledge from years on intelligence committees Lugar and Snowe want this done. Kyl wants his missile defense contract and the GOP make Obama fail as the only agenda McConnell all too happy to endanger their fellow Americans. Endangering Americans for personal gain sounds like Benedict Arnold.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 21, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The people in the know Adm. Mullen and the joints chiefs want this done. Former secy of state all want this done. GOP senators with the knowledge from years on intelligence committees Lugar and Snowe want this done. Kyl wants his missile defense contract and the GOP make Obama fail as the only agenda McConnell all too happy to endanger their fellow Americans. Endangering Americans for personal gain sounds a bit like Benedict Arnold taking his British commission.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 21, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

A real, milestone failure by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, clearly indicating what will happen if the party of No in the Senate is led by this individual in 2011. He represents conservative Republicans. Right now, they are abject, as they should be. America must do better than this.

Posted by: dudh | December 21, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Republican: The gang that can't shoot straight.

Posted by: knjincvc | December 21, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Finally America is seeing the GOP leadership for what they are, a bunch of selfish, obstructionist only interested in furthering their party agenda at the peril of our country. They are off to a great start.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | December 21, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Missile defense against the Bear is useless, so why build it. We have a naval missile umbrella in effect outside of Iran. Iran won't attack Europe nor the bear but has it's sights on dominating Sunni societies. The verification means that 5000 backfire bomber and similar numbers of missiles will be substantially reduced on the bears part and us giving up our ICBMs and short range stuff, leaving the bulk to boomers, a good part to SAC, and the rest naval/air launched cruise missiles. A single tri-mirv warhead boomer can carry 48 bombs, 1/2 hour away from coastal cities, a good deterrent. Signing the treaty tweaks the missile defense contractors but so what.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 21, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Republicans resist an amazing amount of bills that any reasonable person would vote for. How does McCain end up with a ZERO rating from the League of Conservation Voters? Because he wouldn't buck up and support a speck of environmentally positive legislation, no matter necessary. START treaty to keep us safe? Republicans fight it just to be nasty about it. Animal Rights legislation? Republicans get terrible scores from the Humane Society. Human Rights legislation? Almost all Republicans (with 9 Dems) just killed the Child Marriage bill - I guess that's something they support.

This isn't rocket science - Republicans consistently, overwhelmingly support AWFUL legislation, and fail to support what most any reasonable person would say is good legislation. That people still vote for Repubs given this recent legislative record is an indictment of the American public and their failure to care enough about issues like the ones I mentioned above...

Posted by: chop1 | December 21, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Well ... the blame for the republican debacle goes right to the top ... party Boss Limbaugh.
When republicans lost the presidency in 2008 they made the conscious decision to let Limbaugh and his cable and radio cohorts run the party ... they failed.

Republicans failed miserably at the health care summit. Whining that the bill was 2100 pages, start over, clean sheet of paper, to complicated whine, whine...
Now we find out the extension to START treaty is seventeen pages and we're back to ... start over, clean sheet of paper, to complicated whine, whine...

Under his breath McConnell is muttering ... we not giving the niggra anything.

Posted by: knjincvc | December 21, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

jameschirico posts December 21, 2010 6:38 PM
"Missile defense against the Bear is useless, so why build it. We have a naval missile umbrella in effect outside of Iran. Iran won't attack Europe nor the bear but has it's sights on dominating Sunni societies. The verification means that 5000 backfire bomber and similar numbers of missiles will be substantially reduced on the bears part and us giving up our ICBMs and short range stuff, leaving the bulk to boomers, a good part to SAC, and the rest naval/air launched cruise missiles. A single tri-mirv warhead boomer can carry 48 bombs, 1/2 hour away from coastal cities, a good deterrent.

Signing the treaty tweaks the missile defense contractors but so what."

Your last sentence is what republican obstructionism is all about.

Does any sane person really believe the U.S. and Russia would ever go to war with each other.

The U.S. needs Russian oil, titanium, diamonds and most of all the U.S. needs Russia to continue to buy U.S. DEBT.

Posted by: knjincvc | December 21, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps McConnell and his cronies need to take remedial reading. Their big beef about the health care bill was how many pages they had to read. Now they can't read a 17 page bill in 8 months?

Posted by: MNUSA | December 21, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. Justice Department, under an agreement yesterday, won’t prosecute the Frankfurt-based bank for fraud or tax evasion for enabling wealthy U.S. citizens to avoid $5.9 billion in taxes, after the bank admitted criminal wrongdoing.

These rich bast..ds are the same folk the conservatives insist be given tax cuts (subsidies) because they are job creators. No they are not!! They are criminals and like any other criminal they should have been tried and put in prison. Perhaps we need to call them what they are (traitors and economic terrorists) and send them to GITMO!!

Posted by: Freethotlib | December 21, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh big deal. A nuclear arms treaty. As if that's important, come on now. Why should I care if every single living Republican Secretary of State supports it. And the military thinks it is vital to our national security. And so what if there have been 18 Congressional hearings on the subject - you can't rush these things. In fact, rush is the operative word here. The important thing is what Rush thinks! He is one really smart guy. Who else but a genius would remind you of that fact themself, every single day! Hey, he has talent on loan from God - in case you forgot, he's always reminding us of that too. Of course, that is all tongue-in-cheek. And he has pretty big cheeks, too. And what he wants is Obama to fail. If Obama's fur it, we gotta be agin' it. That's what is really important. ,Far more important than what a few lousy generals think about national security.

Posted by: orrg1 | December 21, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

McConnell needs to retire. He's received enough money from his wife's rich family and should find time to spend it before he completely loses his mind, which appears to be happening as we speak. How can any sane person publicly declare that his #1 mission is to make Obama a 1-term president, with no qualifications whatsoever? He can explain all he want about his underlying rationales, but he's just naive, egotistic, stupid, mean-spirited, unpatriotic (no respect for the US Presidency) and, yes, racist. Wait, we're actually describing most of the GOP leaders.

Posted by: KT11 | December 21, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: KT11 | December 21, 2010 7:38 PM
"Wait, we're actually describing most of the GOP leaders."


Ha, Ha, Ha(cough) Har, Har, Har ...

The GOP is no more!
All that is left are republicans and they are "LEADERLESS"!


Posted by: knjincvc | December 21, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the article slams the GOP for not liking the bill but doesn't bother to state why they don't like the bill or of their distrust of the bill has merit.

Yet, Obama's sheep come out and go "bah, bah, bah.." Given the Russians opposition on anything this and previous admins wanted to accomplish, why do we want a treaty with them? We're going to trust these sleezebags?

BTW, US liabilities went up $2T in 2010 so the repubs weren't very successful stopping much of anything. Will that be in WaPo? Not likely. Check Rueters for the details.

The WaPo Journolist crowd could at least attempt to provide both sides of the story. Naw, it wouldn't give them a thrill up their leg.

Posted by: Tostitos | December 21, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: KT11 | December 21, 2010 7:38 PM
"Wait, we're actually describing most of the GOP leaders."


Ha, Ha, Ha(cough) Har, Har, Har ...

The GOP is no more!
All that is left are republicans and they are "LEADERLESS"!


Posted by: knjincvc | December 21, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Tostitos posts December 21, 2010 7:55 PM |

"...BTW, US liabilities went up $2T in 2010 so the repubs weren't very successful stopping much of anything. Will that be in WaPo? Not likely. Check Rueters for the details...."

Of course liabilities went up!
cheney and bush left office with a "TEN YEAR PROJECTED DEFICIT OF $8-12 TRILLION DOLLARS"!

Did cheney/bush's war stop?
Did bush's prescription drug program suddenly find funding?
Did bush's tax cut suddenly start paying for themselves?
Did eliminating American jobs suddenly make sense?
Did bush's financial sector blunders repay 401's or save the housing market?s

Where's the MBA president NOW?

Posted by: knjincvc | December 21, 2010 8:39 PM | 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