tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2624427931424317180..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Conservatives and STARTJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-19063504160391775132010-12-22T14:18:50.136-06:002010-12-22T14:18:50.136-06:00SALT passed in 1972 with 88 votes. START I passed ...SALT passed in 1972 with 88 votes. START I passed the Senate with 87 votes, START II with 93. The Moscow Treaty passed in 2007 with 95 votes. <br /><br />At best, it appears that the New START treaty will only get about 70. <br /><br />For much of the last half-century, partisan politics always stopped at the water's edge when it came to issues of basic national security. As a result, major treaties almost always had broad bipartisan support in the Senate. <br /><br />That is why I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis here, Mr. Bernstein. The fact that Republicans attempted to thwart this treaty as part of their obstructionist agenda is really unprecedented. <br /><br />After all, did Lindsey Graham essentially said he is voting against the treaty simply because it was brought to a vote during the lame duck session? And isn't the major reason why Mitch McConnell is opposed to it because the Democrats are supposedly ramming it through without time to properly debate it? I guess 21 committee hearings and almost nine months isn't enough time.<br /><br />Although you are correct to note that many on the rightward fringe--the John Birch Society comes to mind--are openly hostile to treaties, they have never had many allies in the Senate. <br /><br />The irony, of course, is that because of the Republicans attempted obstruction here, they have turned ratification, which would have otherwise been a routine procedural affair, into a major political victory for Obama.<br /><br />Ryan Dawkins, <br />www.ryanpolitics.blogspot.comAlbert Camushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06302434393817934604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-37671410429426221802010-12-21T23:39:53.320-06:002010-12-21T23:39:53.320-06:00David,
Good call. I did not know that.David,<br /><br />Good call. I did not know that.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7823486360074273612010-12-21T22:39:17.554-06:002010-12-21T22:39:17.554-06:00Howard Baker was for the Panama Canal Treaty. His ...Howard Baker was for the Panama Canal Treaty. His Democratic opponent tried to use it against him in his 1978 re-election campaign.David Karolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-44215802178957471612010-12-21T17:11:06.937-06:002010-12-21T17:11:06.937-06:00Voting no on this treaty is the equivalent of voti...Voting no on this treaty is the equivalent of voting yes on at least three to four months of no on-the-ground U.s. inspectors whose SOLE job it is to prevent rogue nukes from falling into terrorist hands.<br /><br />That said, Mr. Bernstein, your defense of the indefensible is impressive. If for no other reason, it's casual nature is worthy of praise for your obvious cojones.F. Grey Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04480638797493891795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91975819104601561692010-12-21T16:06:37.196-06:002010-12-21T16:06:37.196-06:00Larison's post is very good. I really don'...Larison's post is very good. I really don't know, without more looking, about the exact history of this stuff in the Senate. I was thinking about SALT II and about Panama when I wrote the post, and if I recall correctly -- and I may not! -- the situation then, in the 1970s, wasn't all that much different than it is now. But it's certainly possible that it's somewhat different (or more) now. <br /><br />Hmmm...did any of the GOP presidential candidates in 1980 support Panama?Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33417927184627527722010-12-21T15:32:55.411-06:002010-12-21T15:32:55.411-06:00p.s. to prior: Jonathan, Larison has a must-read r...p.s. to prior: Jonathan, Larison has a must-read response to this post http://bit.ly/gcoLwwAndrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11695100734524418292010-12-21T15:18:09.892-06:002010-12-21T15:18:09.892-06:00Good point, but in the past would the Perle and Bo...Good point, but in the past would the Perle and Bolton types have captured the leadership and the mainstream of the party? Three quarters of Republicans are going to vote no, including, apparently, Lindsey Graham and McCain. Hasn't the center of gravity shifted that much further toward the lunatic fringe?Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-77837541554804367682010-12-21T14:41:11.054-06:002010-12-21T14:41:11.054-06:00A valid point. This is on the agenda now because O...A valid point. This is on the agenda now because Obama and Reid pushed for it, but they did so in an environment in which GOP gains in the Senate were obvious (starting in, oh, around mayeb August if we're generous, October if we're moderate, and November if we're conservative). So, it's tough to separate out them pushing it because of concerns over legitimate opposition coming in, or because they saw obstructionism coming. <br /><br />However, it's not really going too far out on a limb to see demons behind the motivations of the GOP. They don't exactly have the track record of the angels.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com