Interesting article on the politics of the New Start Treaty

[karynnj]

However, Kerry and White House officials are pressing for additional GOP support prior to sending the ratification resolution to a full Senate vote. U.S. ratification would require 67 votes in the Senate, meaning that the treaty must gain the backing of at least eight Republicans.

"If we had passed it out today, which we could have, we would not have taken it up before we get back," Kerry said. "I think it's better to send a stronger message from the country and a broader base of support."

<snip>
"The only way this treaty gets in trouble is if it's rushed," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said in a recent interview with Reuters. "All they have to do is find enough money to satisfy Senator Kyl that they are prepared to do what they said they would do."

<snip>
The Indiana Republican, though, hinted that politics leading up to the November elections is driving an amount of opposition to the pact.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100804_5234.php

The entire article is fascinating. It looks like this should pass, but it might have to be after the election due to Republican politics - playing with national security. (The comment that the Democratic timing is political - to get another accomplishment for Obama before the election really shows their transparent desire to prevent the President from accomplishing anything.

It is also interesting that Lugar pushed for the vote this week. It really does seem that putting it as soon as they get back makes it harder to claim - as the Republicans love claiming - that Senators did not have time to read everything.

For a laugh, the Heritage Foundation is whining in the Hill that the Hill (which seems to often lean somewhat to the right) was unfair in saying their opposition was because they were against all things Obama (which is true) and that they represented just the Bolton/Palin/Gingrich wing of the GOP on this. They also claim this is being rushed through without debate - even though I count 11 hearings, including one with 2 of the experts they site. http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/112957-heritage-action-opposition-misrepresented-in-column

It is rather telling that they have a problem with these two accusations - both of which look pretty true. I know in 2005, if someone said I was against all things done by Bush and my opinions were like those of the Kerry/Kennedy wing - I would simply have said they had that right.