67 Senate votes are needed to ratify the Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia. Where do we get the 9?

[AlinPA]

McCain said that republcans would not cooperate with President Obama "the rest of the year". Maybe that means they would vote to ratify next year? Usually these treaties get 90 or more Senate votes according to SOS Clinton.

[msongs]

1. the nuclear option lol nt

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Bad!

:spank:

[AlinPA]

4. Beautiful reply! I love this place, someone always has great humour!

[msongs]

8. I try sometimes :-) nt

[backscatter712]

18. As funny as that is, that doesn't work with treaties.

IIRC, treaties do require a 2/3 vote, and that is in the Constitution, unlike the filibuster.

[vaberella]

2. I haven't a clue. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. McCain = sourgrape

[DrToast]

6. I'll bet you Lugar will sign on

And I imagine enough Republicans to pass it will too.

[Mass]

7. Lugar said he was in. Kerry and him are probably be very involved in finding

the 8 additional ones.

[karynnj]

9. This will be less easy than Clinton indicated - which I think was intentional on her part

(The media asked if it would be trouble - it might well be that saying it could be tough would be counterproductive.) Many pundits are repeating Clinton's point that the various nuclear weapons treaties have all gotten 90 or so votes. What she doesn't say is the three votes were in 1988, 1992, and 2002 - what do these 3 years have in common? There was a Republican president in each of them. The Democrats have always supported reducing nuclear weapons - and the Republicans do not want to embarrass their President. No one has made this observation, so I could be wrong, though I wouldn't write this if I didn't think it very likely. Then throw in the current temper tantrum of the Republicans. I seriously can't remember anything substantial getting 67 votes since Obama became President.

There is Lugar, who is 100% behind this -and who has been for decades.
Corker, oddly enough is very supportive on the SFRC of both Kerry and Lugar on FP.
Voinvich is another SFRC Republican likely to follow
Snowe and Collins are both very likely

I suspect that there might be other Republicans who respect Lugar's opinion on foreign policy.

The 9, though assumes that they get all the Democrats. This will not be easy, but Kerry and Lugar are excellent working together - and they should get credit if they shepherd this through.

[Jennicut]

10. Lugar is one of the few reasonable Rethugs on some foreign policy issues.

I would hope he could get some others on board but if it does not happen I think it just makes the Rethugs look bad. Politically you are basically saying you don't care about the safety of the world.

[Zomby Woof]

19. Keep in mind

Lugar and Obama worked together in the Senate on this very issue. Lugar was impressed with then-Senator Obama's contribution to the talks with the Russians.

It makes perfect sense he would follwow through with this.

[karynnj]

23. Lugar is 100% behind this - his opening statement at a March 19, 2009

hearing on Russia which spoke of the need for this treaty was very in line with this. Not to mention, Lugar has quietly backed Kerry and they have had an excellent track record of rejecting troublesome Republican resolutions that could have hurt diplomacy.

[truedelphi]

12. Thank you for pointing out all the details. Good to know. n/t

[Cha]

17. That sounds reasonable but now I

find myself asking..Who will be tip toeing around the teabaggers. The rapture crowd wants to blow up the world, no?:nuke::nuke: Would they picket these repubs for voting with the Dems on this?

Who's up for election to be primaried by a teabag who is well funded by craven power brokers?

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. We dare them to be against nuclear non-proliferation in an election year

I predict 72-78 yes votes. The Russians wouldn't have gone ahead if Lugar didn't do a head count and make assurances.

[Kdillard]

14. I agree this would not have happened if there had not been assurances of

Either country not being embarassed.

[karynnj]

16. We never ratified Kyoto

But this was bilateral - and they likely had Kerry and Lugar involved, who would know what they could get through the Senate.

[karynnj]

15. They were already beyond the expiration of the last treaty though it

was being continued. There is a major international conference on non-proliferation some time in April that Obama is hosting. I assume that Lugar and Kerry have been in the loop on this. They held a hearing that dealt with this and other issues with Russia on March 19 last year.

It depends how you state it. The first comment on a Boston Globe column about Kerry's role there was that Obama was "disarming the US......". I slammed it pretty hard pointing out that the START effort started under Ronald Reagan and signed into law by GHWB.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. Are we sure we can even count on the votes of the bluedog Dems?

Landreiu, Lincoln, Baucus, Bayh, Nelson and the other turncoats whose names escape me.

[backscatter712]

20. On foreign policy issues such as nuclear proliferation, yes, I think so.

With the Blue Dogs, yes they're a pain in the ass, but Obama has been able to negotiate with them and get concessions, and I think they see eye-to-eye with the President on this issue.

For that matter, some of the Repubs are also likely to work with Obama on this, though convincing them to do it is like pulling teeth...

[AlinPA]

28. Cooperating with the President is a big sin now for Blue Dogs and republicans.

[marlakay]

21. Have some guts and do ads all over u.s. saying the repubs

want to blow up america....make it look like they want to go to war with russia....like we won't be safe if we don't have the treaty...

[impik]

22. We'll have 70-75.

[Ikonoklast]

24. McCain might even vote for this, if he didnt face Hayworth.

He has to tack right in his votes now.

[calico1]

25. The Republicans are going to look very bad

if they do not vote for this,.

[AlinPA]

27. But not to their base. The teabagger base will punish them at the polls if they vote for it,

at least the ones whose seats are up this year. McCain put out the word about no cooperation, so this is an area where they can screw up things. If they are crazed enough to stop Senate work at 2:00PM daily, they'll vote against this treaty.

[Hosnon]

26. Not necessarily.

There are three types of treaties in the U.S.: constitutional, legislative, and executive.

Constitutional treaties require the consent of 2/3 of the Senate. Legislative require the consent of a simple majority of both chambers and the President's signature. Executive require only the President's signature.

Internationally, all three are valid treaties but the supremacy of each with regard to domestic law varies.

[Ysabel]

29. from my understanding of the way things work...

i think we have to bribe or pay them...