Yeah, it couldn't be that there are Senators who disagree with the statutes in the treaty itself. It just HAS to be political, because it's always about Obama.
When Mitch McConnell says that the party's number one priority over the next two years is to ensure that Obama is defeated in the 2012 elections, yup. It's not like Republicans are being subtle...they have straightforwardly said that they won't be standing on any principle except "win the next Presidential election."
Minstrel, you're smarter than that. It's not about Obama, it's about his ideology. Many of us--Republican, Democrat and Independent--object to the overall growth of the Federal Government. To roll back much of the agenda, Obama has to lose in 2012. McConnell just said it inartfully. The issue is his policies, not Obama. In the case of START, many on the right want further investment in our nuclear arsenal as well as additional funds directed toward missle defense. The new START treaty makes those issues more difficult. Hell, the Duma hasn't even ratified it yet.
maxiep, you're less naive than that. While some Americans certainly want small government, the Republican party (by which I mean the politicians in Washington) is only for limited government when Democrats are in power. Or, to put it more simply, they are for cutting things they don't like and for instituting things they do like. Just like Democrats. While McConnell was certainly inartful, his mistake was being honest when better politicians are better at masking their true ambitions. They want the power. Do you think McConnell and group would be happy to lose elections to Democrats who "shared their principles" (whatever those might be)? If you think so, we'll have to agree to disagree. The number one aim is to win. The number two aim is to get through the policies they want, some of which limit government, some of which expand government.
I don't think McConnell has the power he thinks he does. The power in the Republican party is in the House and specifically with people like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. McConnell just lost a battle against the Jr. Member from SC, Jim DeMint. I think Republican opposition to the Obama agenda is based on principle, not naked power. The GOP lost its way and was thumped in two consecutive elections. Either they get the message this time, or here comes a third party.
And they want to extend tax cuts for everyone. At some point, we need to start considering our budget woes and stop the spending, spending, spending that started with the previous Republican administration.
Apparently the right doesn't know what this means. They've filibustered more than any minority in history. I will never understand why even having a debate is so wrong? Why don't they want things to debate? Are they afraid that the American people will be able to see both sides of the argument?
It's the wrong fight to fight for the three reasons mentioned in the article: 1. current military leadership urged ratification 2. Former Secretaries of State James Baker, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell urged ratification 3. three Senate Republicans actually voted the treaty out of committee Plus, thousands of nuclear weapons is plenty and missile defense technology is expensive and ineffective
Perhaps let's not have socialized health care or extend unemployment for two years or waste $787B on pet projects? Defense is actually one of the things that is specifically called for in the Constitution.
I wasn't aware that delaying discussion so the issues can be investigated further was the same as blocking it. I guess it was okay by you that the health care legislation was set up so there was no time to read the bill or allow amendments. This treaty calls for reduction of our nuclear arsenal by 30%. It's a big deal. It will be debated, but everyone that votes on it should be brought up to speed.
You do know that the writer of that editoral works for the American Prospect, right? The issues involved aren't so simple. Thousands of nuclear weapons aren't enough when you consider what's left after a first strike. That's why we have redundancy; it's not for shits and giggles. As for missle defense, the systems may not work perfectly now, but they're a lot better than they used to be and will continue to improve. I prefer to be protected rather than to be held hostage by the Russians and Chinese. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War. I don't want to have a conversation with my son like I had with my mother if we ever got into a nuclear war. Weakening our defensive capabilities (including our offensive threat) isn't something in which I'm particularly interested.
I didn't know that but aren't you the one who advocates arguing the message and not the messenger? But the military leadership wants it. I understand your viewpoint but these guys know what it takes to defend the nation.
That article says nothing about the GOP having the most filibusters in history. Also, it was written on March 1st, 2010, which I find fascinating considering that the GOP only had 40 sitting senators until Scott Brown was seated on Febuary 10, 2010, meaning that the GOP must have had the most filibusters EVARRRR in only 20 days with 41 senators? This is why I can't take most people seriously regarding politics. Q: How did a party with 40 senators filibuster anything from January 2009 to February 2010? A: They couldn't unless some people in the Dem caucus joined them. Blame the Democrats for the filibusters. The GOP didn't have the numbers for any filibusters.
Of course they want to win. I see nothing wrong with McConnell's statement - that's politics and it's a full contact sport. Republicans tried real hard to defeat Reid in Nevada, their goal was to defeat him. Democrats tried real hard to defeat Jeb Bush in Florida, too. So I have to ask, so what? As to the START Treaty, if it's good for the country, I hope it passes. I am all in favor of cutting down on nuclear arsenals, but to a point. Unlike other posts I've read, I don't think we're still in a cold war and I don't see the reason to have more than 30-50 nukes. That's enough to be a deterrent and enough to assure we have a working arsenal. On the other hand, Obama's foreign policy style and negotiation style doesn't sit well with republicans (or the world leadership for that matter). Maybe it is too unlike previous treaties to be reasonable to pass.
While I think this is a very good point, another very good point is there were only a handful of bills repeatedly filibustered. The methodology behind the data is flawed. For one, the cloture votes could have failed 100-0 votes and the republicans would get the "blame." And the Democrats could have moved Cloture on the Health Care bill 365 times in 365 days and the republican record would be 365 filibusters. (Even with 60 Democrats in the senate).
