Democrats cautiously optimistic they have votes to ratify New START

[Still a Democrat]

...

As the White House stepped up its lobbying, the Senate on Monday continued to battle over the New START arms treaty with Russia, one of the remaining issues in the lame-duck congressional session.

With 67 votes needed to approve the pact, Democrats were cautiously optimistic that they would garner as many as 10 Republican votes, which are needed to fulfill one of President Obama's top foreign-policy priorities for the session.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-start-debate-122010,0,7033137.story

[karynnj]

1. This should be an easy vote with all the experts onm both sides in favor of it

It is a sign of the toxic climate that this is even close. There is something very wrong with US Senators continuing to repeat things - long after they are disproved - just because the usual right wing sources of taking points say so.

It is even sadder to see a US Senator, who has shown some likelihood of supporting it, pout and essentially say he won't play with the mean Democrats because they passed DADT - with 63 votes and over 70% of the country agreeing.

[Still a Democrat]

2. Terrified of the Tea Party and agreeing with Obama

There is no rational argument against it, as you say.

[oldlib]

13. They don't want the Obama administration

to succeed on any legislation. They are suggesting that the administration is soft on arms control period.

[Johonny]

3. the longer they delay, the more likely you work them Christmas day

It's only our national security, the crap Republicans love to talk about.

[Still a Democrat]

4. None of their constituents have to work Christmas

:sarcasm:

[NotThisTime]

10. I hope Harry holds them to it and they damn well work Christmas...

[Kber]

5. I hope they are right.

[gratuitous]

6. Plenty of votes to ratify it

But will the Republicans let it come to one of those sacrosanct "up-or-down" votes they're so fond of invoking when it's something they're pursuing? Ratifying the treaty now probably won't have any salutary effect on the 2012 elections for the Democrats (like repeal of DADT won't, so that was a safe thing to allow, and the Republicans can yammer about how that betrayed the American people), but if they can figure out a way to make it a liability, they'll allow it to come to a vote. If they can't find a way to profit from it politically, they'll probably torpedo it. The popular media are uncritically reporting every overdramatic objection the Republicans are voicing, so there's no downside for the Republicans to stop the treaty from coming up for a vote.

[karynnj]

7. You are wrong here - it passed cloture with 66 votes

A treaty needs 67 votes to ratify it.

[gratuitous]

9. Then, I would surmise

The Republicans have figured out a way they can bash the Democrats during the 2012 elections. It will be pretty easy, I'm sure, but what form it will take has yet to be seen. Surely, anything bad that happens, or anything that continues to be bad will be blamed on ratification of the START treaty as one of the leading causes. The criticism, no matter how loony, will be solemnly repeated until people start thinking that an increase in their garbage fees is due to START.

The alternative is that the Republicans will simply ignore it as an accomplishment, and their media lackeys will follow their lead when it comes to enumerating administration successes, of which there won't be none.

Another alternative will be that the Republican-controlled House will introduce all kinds of bills directly counter to START, knowing that they're violations of our treaty obligations, and then whine about how the Obama administration, in cahoots with their socialist cabal in the Senate, is damaging America's security with one-sided treaties that hurt our ability to protect and defend ourselves. Tailor made for Fox News is my guess.

[karynnj]

14. You can see the charges in embryotic form now

and they don't even depend on anything happening.

listen to Sessions objecting to the mention that missile defense is for limited attacks. Given that missile defense just failed another test this Saturday - 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 by threatening to leave the treaty, this "fail proof" missile defense that is keeping us safe.

[countingbluecars]

8. I just got a robocall

asking me to call my senators and tell them to vote against the START treaty-said it should be called the "start to surrender treaty". I think the repugs are sinking in their heels on this one. Then again this is Virginia, and the right wing wackos are in power here.

[karynnj]

15. Could you post this as a thread - calling on Virginians to call their Senators in favor of the this

This robocall means that they are trying to generate a ton of negative calls to the Senators. Webb is up for re-election - it would be better if he got as many calls from our side.

We have less ability to reach people, but the ones we do reach are more political and more knowledgeable. This needs to be here, on Daily Kos and on the "blue" Virgina site (I don't know name, but remember lots of posts on it back 6 years ago. )

[spanone]

11. wait til mcconnell & kyl & graham get done twisting arms....

[oldlib]

12. The repugs are again stalling

and making every effort to delay the process. They are repeating issues that were discussed months ago to add time.