Kerry Rips McConnell On START: ‘Just Because You Say It Doesn’t Make It True’ (ThinkProgress)

[beachmom]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/20/kerry-vs-mcconnell-start/

There is a video at the link, but here is the quote:

I would say to my friend from Kentucky: Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have a habit of repeating things that have been completely refuted by every fact there is. … The facts are that this treaty is not being rushed.

This treaty has been delayed at the request of Republicans. It was delayed 13 times… to have more time to deal with the modernization issue, which the administration has completely, totally, thoroughly dealt with in good faith. I’d like to know where the good faith comes from on the other side. They put extra money in, they sat and negotiated, they sent people to Arizona to brief Senator Kyl personally. For weeks we delayed the process of moving forward on this treaty in order accommodate our friends on the other side of the aisle. And now fully accommodated, with their requests entirely met, they come back and say ‘oh its being rushed.’ Well Mr. President today marks our sixth day of debate on the New START treaty. That’s a fact. … I mean is there no shame.

[MBS]

1. oh, yeah. He said it, in spades.

Thanks for posting this.

[ProSense]

2. Kerry hit the nail on the head.

"Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true."

This is happening much too much today, say anything, facts be damned.

[MBS]

3. a great comment on thinkprogress site. .

from "NortCoast" (who seems to be a vet--maybe Vietnam Vet?--which explains several of his better rejoinders to the SBVT-type comments on the site. . )

Good for you, Sen. Kerry. Keep it up, turn it up and don't let down. We're with you.

[karynnj]

4. I've been sort of watching this since Wednesday

- sort of having it on in the background. Kerry has been incredible and indefatigable. He is refuting every point as they make them. It has been incredible to see.

Frustrating too - as there is so much sheer dishonesty - like Sessions objecting to the mention that missile defense is for limited attacks. Given that missile defense just failed another test - where there was exactly one "missile" and they knew that there would be one, it shows that they are pretending that missile defense is at a stage where it pure and simple isn't. Where this may seem silly, this is important, the claim does several things:

1) If missile defense were perfect, we would have little need of the treaty. (In reality, there is still the problem of loose nukes and the fact that our allies could be hit.)
2) It means those scientists who told Reagan in the 1980s that it really was not feasible given the state of the art were just misguided leftists.

His claim depends on missile defense being seen as doing a great job, then his contention is Obama is limiting - or will limit if the Russians insist on it threatening to leave the treaty, this "fail proof" missile defense that keeps us safe.

[karynnj]

5. Someone on DU posted that he got a robocall in VA to oppose it

by calling his Senators. Is there a way to generate calls from our side?

[karynnj]

6. Hill article suggests that they might the votes

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/134551-gop-senators-concede-start-will-win-enough-votes-to-pass-handing-victory-to-obama

The Republicans they mention are: Lugar, Gregg, Voinvich, Brown, Corker, Cochran, Snowe and Collins. There are then 5 that they think possible - Isakson, Murkowski, Bennett, Kirl and McCain (!!!)

I will be shocked if McCain is a yes. Here, not all the yeses are firm and the 5 possibilities are explained. The new one - to me - is Cochran. I had also thought that Murkowski was a likely yes, but that is not from any direct quote.

Anyway, this is more positive than some earlier accounts and Hill leans right. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/134551-gop-senators-concede-start-will-win-enough-votes-to-pass-handing-victory-to-obama


Massachusetts note - if this passes, the papers better not go with a title that "New Start confirmed, Brown votes "aye"

[Mass]

7. The Globe is already there. Matt Viser could not avoid this

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/12/scott_brown_to_1.html

Brown's announcement significantly strengthens the effort by his Massachusetts colleague, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the treaty. Kerry has been President Obama's point man in the administration's effort to win passage. Kerry needs the votes of two-thirds of the senators -- 67 if every member is present -- in order to ratify the treaty.

I expect fully that tomorrow, after the vote, he will write about how Brown saved the treaty single-handedly.

The only problem is that these votes make him more difficult to beat in 2012. He can show some bipartisan votes and nobody will remember his numerous votes against DADT before he voted for it, or his votes against the 9/11 first responders bill or the Dream Act.

[karynnj]

8. Just watching the amendment votes - that failed, I think Kerry has the votes

This just from his demeanor and what looked like good floor conversations with Brown and Murkowski. I am not sure that this vote can really help Brown much because it is an issue that really does not not move anyone. Look at the difference here between this and DADT. That vote may help him. I am not so sure the REAL flip flops won't hurt him - after all the Republicans used that against Kerry, who really did NOT have a record of flip flops.

Better yet, his explanation of the flip flopping is that he held everything hostage to the tax cuts for the wealthy. That is actually not positive.

[MBS]

11. Sigh.. . n/t

[karynnj]

9. They've updated it to say that there are 10 Republicans!!!

Bennett of Utah and Isakson are the two new ones.

[beachmom]

10. Okay, I'll call Isaakson tomorrow.

If he rep'd a different state he wouldn't have so conservative a record. Deep down he's reasonable.

[karynnj]

12. Politico article - it looks like McCain will try for a non- poison bill amendment

in the ratification document committing the US to missile defense. As Obama already made concessions that greatly raised the amount of money for missile defense, I think this resolution - that actually does nothing (it doesn't fund missile defense or pass a specific program) seems to be a face saving amendment for McCain.

So, in reality, Kerry, Obama, Biden, Clinton etc will have a genuine hard fought victory, but we will see stories of Brown being independent, reading the treaty, and deciding in favor of it and of McCain preserving America's ability to defend itself - even though the program has yet to be effective and was NEVER in jeopardy. We need a new media - cause I really don't want to say that you have to go with the media you have. (Needless to say if it were to fail, suddenly it would be Obama and Kerry who would be criticized.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46655.html