It appears that there is no way Obama will get the Start Treaty ratified. What now?

[LeftyAndProud60]

I see all the work Obama put in w/ respect to Russia going down the drain. Any chance I'm wrong?

[Kolesar]

1. what have you seen that would make you conclude this? eom

[AlinPA]

7. Why would republicans go along with something Obama advocates? That's the answer. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Because untouchable senior Republicans have already stamped it go

And the last thing they need right now is to look like they've been usurped by the crazies.

Russia would have never agreed had not Lugar and others assured them that they can get it through the Senate. And they're going to do just that. General claims of "They won't agree to anything!" are silly. You have to look at the specific cases and determine who has their dick in the wind on it. In this case, that's Dick Lugar, and Lugar didn't get to be a six-term senator by getting pushed around and leaving his ass out to the likes of Rand Paul.

[AlinPA]

12. Lugar is on the hit list for 2012. Any of the others who go along with the president on this will

be teabaggered out and they will be threatened on it before the elections. Republican dinosaurs like Lugar don't matter to the likes of DeMint and Paul anymore. It's a different republican party now. My last question is why would the republicans want it to pass? It would definitely make Obama look like he has a success in world affairs. I can't see McConnell allowing that to happen given his goal to stop the President.

[chill_wind]

14. This is somewhat informative, IMHO:

START: Arms Affirmation Treaty
Darwin BondGraham, October 29, 2010


http://www.fpif.org/articles/start_arms_affirmation_treaty

In order to win Republican support necessary for passage, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry (D-MA) supported the substitution of his "Resolution of Advice and Consent" with Senator Richard Lugar’s (R-IN) version, although Kerry's already contained a strong endorsement of nuclear modernization, missile defense, and PGS. Two amendments were added prior to the SFSC vote. Senator James Risch’s (R-ID) amendment assures funding increases for new nuclear-weapons-capable submarines, missiles, and bombers (the strategic "triad"). Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) clause, meanwhile, emphasizes that the treaty does not prohibit the building of any missile defense system, especially one that achieves the vision of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative - an impenetrable shield over North America ready to strike down one or thousands of warheads from the sky.

Lugar's approved resolution protects the nuclear modernization, missile defense, and prompt global strike provisions from the budget shortfalls that will affect most federal agencies in the upcoming fiscal years. Consequently, the ratification process has undercut the possibility of wide-ranging debate on the merits and costs of these weapons programs within and outside the halls of Congress. Centrist arms control groups, such as the Arms Control Association and Council for a Livable World, have emphasized that New START imposes neither limits on nuclear modernization nor missile defense in their op-eds and pro-ratification testimony. Liberal peace groups have tended to omit any references to provisions within the treaty that require nuclear modernization or additional weapons systems in their communications with constituents and the public. Ironically, many peace and security foundations and organizations -- from the Ploughshares Fund and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to the American Friends Service Committee and Peace Action West -- have lobbied aggressively for New START ratification, further empowering Republican Senators to demand even larger investments in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons programs.

quite a bit more there.

[AlinPA]

17. Informative- very much so. There is a lot of money involved and a lot of lobbying, but

my main argument is that since it will look like a success by the President in world affairs, the republicans will not abide ratification of the treaty. For republicans, nothing matters except ruining the President. As you know, their leader made that statement.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. If in lame duck

Lugar
Graham
Snowe
Collins
Kirk
Alexander
Corker
Bennett
Brown
Voinivich
Hatch


At the least. I think others will cave and let the radicals be radicals.

If in new session, trickier indeed.

[FrenchieCat]

2. The chances are that you are wrong......

and that since I believe there may be a job opening over at MSNBC,
you should consider applying....because like Chris Matthews and some
of the other pundits (not KO), you seem quite content in just posting
shit that are negative and that you "heard" on the TV.....

Do you have any thoughts of your own rather than repeating to us
what you've "heard" from somewhere? I'm just curious. :shrug:

[LeftyAndProud60]

3. do u have any plans to join all of us in the real world? NT

[FrenchieCat]

5. The real world, or the world of television, that some appear to want to

make into the real world as often as possible?

[chill_wind]

4. NYT

U.S. Election Could Derail Relations With Russia
By PETER BAKER
Published: November 6, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/europe/07policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[jillan]

6. It all rests on Jon Kyl?

The administration and its allies believe they have about a dozen Republican votes, enough to meet the two-thirds requirement for passage, if they can reach agreement with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, who has been holding out in exchange for commitments to modernize the nuclear arsenal. Senate Republican aides said the treaty would pass as long as Mr. Kyl was satisfied.

Modernize the nuclear arsenal - that's the deal Obama needs to make with Repukes to get it passed.

I don't know if I should cry or throw up.

[chill_wind]

9. More :

Uncertainty Persists on Plan to Ratify "New START"
Friday, Oct. 29, 2010
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20101029_6532.php

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Too many prominent GOPers put their seal of approval on it

If they don't ratify now, they'll be tagged as weaklings in their party, which has been taken over by a know-nothing mob. Lugar will push it through. He'll walk into their Caucus meeting and say that anyone who tries to filibuster will deal with him on committees and assignments, and it won't be pretty.

He knows that he'll look like an absolute fool if the treaty goes down. They'll wail and moan and make little pathetic noises, but they'll get the votes together. Bank it.

[chill_wind]

11. Lugar-- key supporter

A Republican landslide in next Tuesday's election could preclude Senate endorsement of the pact during the lame-duck session, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a key GOP supporter of New START, said Wednesday.

"I have no idea what the results of the election will be, but in the event that there are very substantial changes and many of them on the Republican side, some will say, ‘This (treaty) is something that we really haven't had a chance to get into and study, and we want more time,'" The Hill quoted Lugar as saying.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20101029_6532.php

[AlinPA]

13. He will have to deal with McConnell whose goal is to stop the President and get him out of office.

I don't think Lugar has that power anymore, now it's all about destroying the President and his agenda. Nuclear arms treaties don't mean anything to the republicans now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Meh

There's politics and there's politics.

People are making too much of McConnell's pandering to the crazies. Business still gets done.

Time will tell, I suppose.

[chill_wind]

18. And Kyl with his Quid Pro Quo

has to be swayed.

http://peaceworker.dreamhosters.com/2010/11/path-for-vote-on-new-start-this-year-goes-through-kyl/

[chill_wind]

19. .

[Odin2005]

20. Treaties only nead Senate approval. We still have the Senate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Treaties need 67 in the Senate

It's gonna be tricky, but it will pass

[Uzybone]

21. more concern

[chill_wind]

23. You were right.

Kyl killed it. Admin negotiated with him-- and it still wasn't enough.

"In recent days, the administration dangled an additional $4 billion in hopes of winning his support, but Mr. Kyl held out. The administration has also promised to spend more than $100 billion over 10 years upgrading the triad of nuclear weapons: submarines, bombers and missiles.'

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/senate-leader-deals-blow-to-president-on-arms-treaty/?hp

[LeftyAndProud60]

24. Yeah, it was never a debate after the election. I wonder where that FrenchieCat person is

[liberalpragmatist]

25. I wonder if we could still pass it w/out Kyl

Within a few days, Burris (D-IL) will be replaced by a Republican, Mark Kirk, so we'll have 58 Democrats and Independent Democrats and 42 Republicans.

If all 58 Democrats stick together, we'll still need 9 more Republicans.

Lugar is already on board. Kirk will probably support it. If the Maine girls support it, and if Lisa Murkowski supports it, that'll get us to 63. Perhaps George Voinovich would vote yes, getting us to 64. Can we get 3 more? Bob Corker was a possibility, but he made discouraging comments backing up Kyl, so he may be out. Maybe Judd Gregg and Scott Brown?

If we wait till January, a few new Republicans might support it - Kirk (as already state), Coats (due to Indiana connections with Lugar), but beyond that, I'm skeptical.

[LeftyAndProud60]

27. Has Lugar publicly said he's on board?

[liberalpragmatist]

28. Yes

He is fully on board - he's endorsed it, has held joint press conferences with Kerry backing it, etc. He is absolutely on board.

[impik]

26. The stupid people of this country are getting what they deserve

[geek tragedy]

29. Demonize the living crap out of the Republicans.

Call them out as being more concerned about partisan politics than human life and the security of our nation.

And stop acting so fucking surprised when these snakes pull this shit.