There are 17 paragraphs in the New York Times front page story about the START treaty. Fifteen of them are devoted to the giant risk that President Obama is taking in pushing our most vestigial legislative body to hold a fucking vote on a treaty that’s critical for our national security.
If you want to read about the real importance of START, one of the few remaining DC news organizations, McClatchy, has the actual news. Or, you can read one of about a dozen START-related posts on Daniel Larison’s blog, like the aptly-titled Wasting Time.
I don’t think I’m being partisan or tribal to point out that if the tables were turned, and Democrats were opposing START over the wishes of a Republican President, that they’d be mau-maued into next week by the press and Republicans, because our vital and sacred national security is at stake. Instead, we have a bunch of “is he rough enough” “is he tough enough” bullshit speculation about Obama’s manly ability to get John Kyl to stop grandstanding about this uncontroversial and necessary vote.
Winston Smith
I dunno mistermix.
When someone says, “Obama,” I’m like, “meh,” but when someone says, “John Kyl,” I get a boner.
I think this should affect national policy.
Dr. Omed
Call me simpleminded…but–Doesn’t the Constitution require the Senate to “advise and consent” to a treaty before the President can ratify it? It might be a “giant risk” but the treaty does not go into effect until as far as the United States is concerned until these two things occur.
Dr. Omed
Call me simpleminded…but–Doesn’t the Constitution require the Senate to “advise and consent” to a treaty before the President can ratify it? It might be a “giant risk” but the treaty does not go into effect until as far as the United States is concerned until these two things occur.
Xboxershorts
Oh man, when the “Times” start talking about the political horse race I get all wet. usually because I’ve farted and need to go wipe my ass. The “Times” is very helpful for that task.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
what I heard is the gopers want money –surprise, surprise, for moderation of current warheads for their votes. I didn’t hear how much money and how it would be disbursed. but that was the hold up. The treaty is fine, but they’re holding it as hostage until they receive their ransomed pork.
Annelid Gustator
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century): Yeah, and the admin already said “okay” to that. So now the holdup is just. Wait. Hold-up. Yep. That’s exactly right!
Davis X. Machina
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):
Kyl’s ransom was put in the most recent Defense appropriation bill, and he turned right around and announced he’d vote against the treaty anyways…
Napoleon
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):
I think the nuke warhead issue is more sophisticated then just pork. I am convinced a good part of the Neo-Cons want the US to develop a first strike nuke capacity. The Dems will not explicitly go along with it, but unless there are operating production lines when the Reps come to power they will not be able to ramp up building first strike weapons in time before possible election set backs, so now they are beating up on the Dems and trying to get them to put the lines in place for modernizing so they have them available to build the first strike weapons when they come to power.
This is about nuking Iran
kwAwk
Do you think that Bush and Cheney would have through twice about using every dirty trick in the book to get this passed?
Think about it. If the roles were reversed the right wing ecochamber would be going crazy telling the nation that Democrats were traitors who were usurping the Constitution and executive power for political gain.
On the left the attempted eco chamber of the left is doing the same thing, but this ‘professional left’ gets derided by the Presidents people as not being appreciative enough and making it hard to ‘work with the Republicans’.
Can you imagine Bush ever going to Limbaugh and saying ‘Hold on, hold on. You’re making it hard for me to compromise with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’.
AB
Sorry but uh,
1) If Kyl isn’t going to vote for it, they should take out the money from Defense appropriations and
2) I’d like the START treaty to be ratified, but why exactly is it so vital to our national security? The Russians are going to nuke us or something? Really?
I’d think that the importance of START is to make sure the world has less nuclear weapons, because let’s face it, you don’t need a nuclear arsenal 500 times the amount of nukes that have been detonated in a military context to date. Unless you want to destroy the world a couple times over, and come on, we have rich people to do that.
Chris
The best analogy for arms reduction talks I’ve ever heard, is that you have two people, each pointing a fully loaded pistol (seven bullets) at each other at point blank range. They each agree to remove three bullets from the clip. After that, they’re still pointing the same pistol at each other and each of them still has four bullets in it. Should either of them feel any safer?
And that analogy didn’t come from a peacenik, it came from ultimate Reagan admirer and neocon promoter Tom Clancy. Interestingly, the man was a START skeptic not only because he doubted Russian intentions, but also because he didn’t think it changed anything substantive – “the difference between two thousand and one thousand warheads only affects how far the rubble flies,” in his words. That part, at least, I find it hard to argue with.
Comrade Javamanphil
To assume Kyl has any motivation beyond throwing a massive tantrum because the President is a Democrat is to severely overestimate his intelligence. He wouldn’t remember when to change his own diaper if Vitter hadn’t been re-elected.
Sly
@kwAwk:
Robert Gibbs derided some liberals for saying that Obama was just like Bush. You then use that statement in a complaint that Obama is not enough like Bush. This seems somewhat contradictory.
@Napoleon:
Or they’re perfectly willing to jeopardize American prestige for personal political gain. I think this is more likely, as they’ve fucked up this country’s reputation for less.
Emma
McClatchy is the ONLY place that has the news lately, other than some blogs.
Davis X. Machina
@Sly: Concur re Napoleon and a first strike against Iran. As it is, we have far, far more than enough nukes to turn Iran into a Trinitite parking lot under any conceivable interpretation of New START.
It’s dick-measuring. Us v. Russia. Them v. Obama. Dems v. GOP.
Ash Can
@Dr. Omed: This isn’t “advise and consent.” This is obstructing Obama. Kyl is not being honest.
Suck It Up!
@kwAwk:
its really too early for this “Obama’s picking on us” crap. really it is. Are you telling me that the professional left isn’t fighting the right wing’s attempt to destroy this country because Obama doesn’t appreciate them?
In any case, no one listens to the professional left unless they are being critical of Obama and the Democrats.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
This treaty is critical because in exchange for reducing our arsenals, we get to monitor Russia’s arsenal. One of the biggest security risks to the US since the cold war ended is the prospect of terrorists getting nuclear material from poorly secured Russian arsenals. The tracking and monitoring systems in this treaty will allow us all to better keep track of their nuclear material, thus reducing that risk. This is really important. Please call your senators and ask them to ratify, ESPECIALLY if that senator is a Republican.
Chris
Are you telling me that the professional left isn’t fighting the right wing’s attempt to destroy this country because Obama doesn’t appreciate them?
No, I think his point is that the professional left seems to be the only group fighting those attempts. And that the fight isn’t going to succeed if people like the Obama administration insist on marginalizing them.
Which is all the more true now that “professional left” is defined as “anyone the right wing designates as such.” It used to mean ideological nutbags who wanted to abolish capitalism. Nowadays, it means “people who think that if German corporations can outproduce ours even though they have higher tax rates, stronger unions and a smaller population, then American corporations ought to be able to handle these things too.”
Lawnguylander
@kwAwk:
You’re right that if the roles were reversed the right wing echo chamber would be beating up on the Democrats. And rightly so. But you could not have picked a worse instance to champion the the Professional Left. The immediate reaction was to jump on Obama about how stupid and weak he was to compromise with Senate Republicans on a treaty that requires 67 votes to pass. Absolutely fucking idiotic, factually and politically. And the freakout was largely based on a description of the White House’s reaction in the NYTs. Not even an anonymous quote. We’ve been hearing about how worthless the corporate media is for years now but that was seized upon without a critical thought as a check on Memeorandum from Wednesday would show. If you define the Professional Left a little more broadly than usual, Cole even got in on the act. It’s become a reflex.
Lawnguylander
@Chris:
How is the White House marginalizing the Professional Left? How would anyone marginalize such group of people so determined to remain on the margins that they alternate between reactions that are hysterically critical of Obama when he’s trying to do the right thing, as with this treaty, and telling each other what a bunch of victims they are? If marginalizing the Professional Left were possible, this whole mess would make doing so justifiable.
El Cid
@Emma: I often describe their articles as “committing actual journalism”.
mk3872
Today’s media, repeat after me: “Process over substance, process over substance …”
The coverage of the health care bill is now the new standard in our media.
Actual policy and impact analysis is just too darned difficult for NYT or WaPo.
Odie Hugh Manatee
When economies go south countries go to war. War is the ultimate distraction. Why worry about politicians and their petty politics when you have to save your nation or the world from some evil entity? I wouldn’t put it past our craven politicians (especially the repugs) to start a war just for this purpose. Ok, they’ll find some rube of a country to attack on the pretense that they were going to attack us anyway.
Hello Iran!
ChrisNYC
What you say the Times is doing is exactly what “the left” did with DADT. Rather than making the GOP Senators who wouldn’t vote to repeal the issue, the problem was Obama’s supposed “weakness.” (Why anyone thought he would order a massive military review on DADT and then turn around and make that review pointless by pushing for repeal before the report came out is beyond me. That wouldn’t be leadership or “fighting” — it would be schizophrenic.)
In any event, I think this story is pretty much what the WH wants. Obama chose to take this on — he’s all over it — popped into the Biden meeting (yesterday or the day before, can’t remember which), called all the FP grey heads to the WH yesterday, presumably got Lugar to rebuke the GOP for their silliness. My own theory is that this is part of a bigger deal with our allies that pulls in Israel/Palestine and Iran. Anyway, it’s important and Obama wants to be seen as raising the stakes.
A Duck
Um, we have quite a robust first strike capability, and our counterforce strike capability is just fine, too. We have, and always have, had the largest and m ost capable nuclear strike forces in the world, and we were the first nation to employ nuclear terror as a political weapon. Our sub and air launched cruise missiles can do the job, to say nothing of gravity bombs launched from our wide array of stregic and tactical bombers (F111, F117, B1, B2, F/A-18, F16, F15 can all mount nukes IIRC). What the Repubs want is to exit the Test Ban Treaty so as to develop deep penetration nukes to go after the latest generation of bunkers(well, hello Persia), which resist the relatively paltry destructiveness of conventional ‘bunker busters’. Computer modeling can help reassure us that the existing arsenal will go boom, but is less helpful in developing new weapons.
The crazy fuckers actually want us to use nukes, again. VP candidate Curtis “insane psychopath” LeMay was merely ahead of his time.
kwAwk
@Sly:
The world is rarely black and white. Obama should be derided for being like Bush when Obama is being like Bush and the outcome is bad and should be derided for not being like Bush when the outcome is bad.
The truth is that the right views their base as being integral to their success both in the present and the future. The left views its base as something to be derided, mocked and ridiculed.
Lawnguylander
Morons who can’t be relied on to direct their criticism towards the Republicans even in a case such as this where there are clear good guys vs. a cartoonishly evil set of bad guys aren’t anybody’s base but a narrow set of opportunists that rely on them for page hits and the occasional blog fundraiser. I don’t know what kind of revenue there is to be found in such an approach to politics and I don’t understand why their readers feel an allegiance to such people unless the margins are where they feel most comfortable.
JAHILL10
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: This. The question has moved beyond the Cold War pointed loaded pistols at each others heads dynamic. The name of the game today is keeping loose nukes out of terrorist hands. Russia has no control over its far flung arsenals and this treaty will help us track that material down and secure it.
The deep, evil cynicism of the Republicans opposing this springs not only from the political calculation of denying Obama any recognizable “victory.” Some, I think, wouldn’t mind if some small nuclear device were detonated in the U.S. so they could make that last push for a full blown fascist dictatorship and the terrified American populace would welcome it with open arms.
Stop worrying about whether Obama’s got enough intestinal fortitude to pound the bully pulpit. He’s pounding it on this and we should be helping him. Call your senator and tell them you want this thing passed.
Suck It Up!
@Chris:
how exactly is the professional left being marginalized?
not buying it. sorry. no one is stopping them from doing their jobs.
Mr Furious
@AB: Spend a few minutes at Larison’s place and you’ll quickly understand why this treaty is extremely important—and also completely uncontroversial.
1. Non-proliferation is the single most important national security concern by a mile. As someone mentioned upthread, it lets us monitor Russia’s arsenal.
2. It establishes a collaborative relationship with Russia regarding Iran.
3. NATO allies have been banking on it.
Suck It Up!
@kwAwk:
The GOP establishment is damned good. They even have a liberal thinking that they actually care about their base. The GOP is fattening up their base for the slaughter. Don’t be envious.
Mr Furious
@JAHILL10:
Word.
The GOP, however, hasn’t moved beyond the Cold War at all. They still want a gun pointed everywhere, and a newer/bigger/shinier one at that.
The very nightmare scenario they like to push fear with—a suitcase nuke in an American city—is made more likely by these stall tactics. Why is that?
1. The threat is not that real, and they know it, so “no big deal.”
or
2. They don’t give a shit, because it will happen on Obama’s watch.
3. They want to bomb Iran.
4. It makes sense to reduce the nuclear threat to the planet—therefore the GOP is opposed.
I hate these fuckers. If they are willing to play politics to screw Obama with something as important, uncontroversial, and widely agreed upon as this treaty, then it should be clear to everyone that they are in fact holding the gun on us.
Mike
@Chris: Except that 1000 nukes is easier to secure than 2000 – and when the biggest real threat from nukes is a single one falling into the hands of a lunatic – security is a pretty gosh darn big deal.
kwAwk
@Suck It Up!:
Never said they care. Just that they’ve been a hell of a lot more effective at enacating an agenda since 1980 than the Democrats have.
Sly
@kwAwk:
@kwAwk:
These sentiments are also somewhat contradictory. Either the Right cares about “their base” or they don’t. Either they are accountable to the political demands of those who elect them or they aren’t.
And what agenda, precisely, have they enacted that their base favors? Distributing the nation’s wealth upwards? Only a very small component of the political right actually favors that agenda. Ask social conservatives, who constitute much more of the rank and file of the conservative movement, if they think we came any closer to their vision of America during the nearly eight years that the people they voted for controlled the entirety of the Federal government.
Mnemosyne
@kwAwk:
The treaty requires 67 votes to pass. What “dirty tricks” are you picturing that Bush would have been able to use to blackmail Democrats for something like this?
Of course, the problem never would have come up under Bush because the treaty is completely non-controversial. The only reason the Republicans are opposing it is to embarrass the president.
As I said in another thread, you can’t negotiate with nihilists, because they don’t actually want anything. You can’t bribe them or threaten them, because they don’t care about anything but destruction.
Under Bush, Democrats would have been persuaded to vote for this by rational means (no one wants loose nukes getting into the wrong hands). The Republicans are completely irrational at this point, and only getting worse.
ChrisNYC
@Lawnguylander: I think they’re not so much opportunists as just bad advocates. The thing that is puzzling to me is the fealty and trust that gets given to the “professional left” when they yell so loudly about how their advocacy efforts always fail.
Lawnguylander
@ChrisNYC:
My opinion is that they’re bad advocates because successful outcomes are not what they care about. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people like David Sirota and the various front-pagers at FDL, just to pick a few examples, use the same kind of language to make sure that their readers are aware that they should take the latest piece of political news personally rather than a situation that requires a constructive reaction. Just like I edit things like Powerpoint presentations before a meeting to make sure to include all the magic words like cost savings, efficiency, etc., I think they use terms like “giant middle finger to the left” and “rub their nose in it” because they know personalized language like that is what their readers want to hear. Maybe I’m being paranoid and so many of them write like that because they just think alike but it strikes me as calculated and opportunistic. Either way it’s a childish approach to politics.
ChrisNYC
@Lawnguylander: I hear you. That stance (just yell “hippie punching!!!”) is also conveniently E-A-S-Y. Easier to do that than to do hard work, make smart strategic conclusions (“what can we do that furthers our cause and that also furthers the Dem party”) and bring readers along. Instead, you just have to run every fresh piece of news through the outrage prism — and out pops a new screeching blog post.