Sen Kyl (R-AZ) Tries to Kill New START Treaty

[heliochrome85]

In yet another bristling example of Republican obstructionalism, Senator Kyl does not believe that the US Senate should vote on START, the treaty agreed to by Obama and Russian President Medvedev, to both reduce Nuclear weaponry by both countries, and finally bring US monitors to Russian Nuclear silos to stem the availability of these weapons on the Black Market.

His logic is stunning.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _new_start

Sen. d!ck Lugar (R-IN) disagrees.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/11 ... start.html


WHAT IS IN THE WATER IN AZ?!?!?!

Someone is trying to give SC a run for its money for CRAZIEST STATE..

[IBCoupe]

Hey, what's wrong with his logic? There's complex and unresolved issues in START! Haven't you heard? And except for the information they hand-delivered, they haven't answered his questions!

Well, here's my source for that: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _new_start

[audtatious]

He's not killing anything. It seems he believes it should not be voted on during the lame duck session as they should be focusing in on jobs and the economy instead.

"I'm a firm yes vote, but the lame duck session should focus on jobs, the economy, and reducing the debt," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told The Cable. "We can take care of the START treaty after the first of the year."

Seems at least some Democrats agree.

[IBCoupe]

I don't understand how that priority set is any different next year.

[audtatious]

So, you think START is more important than US economics? Maybe they should address the steroid issue in major league sports again as a time waster next?

[heliochrome85]

thats a nonstarter matt. the GOP leadership has already stopped any work of a stimulus before the new congress starts. again, the MANDATE OF NOVEMBER OTT TEN, has been cited as the cause. as if all business of congress should stop until the new guys show up.


and yes, i do think its more important. SO does Sen Lugar. We have no idea how things are inside russian nuclear silos. We havent for a year because of the expiration of the last START treaty. Unless you want Al Qaeda to get its hands on a soviet nuke, this should be a priority, and unfortunately, Kyl is doing this for political reasons. Otherwise, he'd have toed the line that McCain has and supported it.

[heliochrome85]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_ ... ia_nuclear

[IBCoupe]

So, you think START is more important than US economics? Maybe they should address the steroid issue in major league sports again as a time waster next?

No, I'm just saying that the reasoning leaves much to be desired. "We can't decide this in November because we have economic troubles! This would be much better decided three months from now! Surely our economic troubles will be over!"

[srellim234]

While the whole process shouldn't come to a standstill, Congress still needs to prioritize what they are doing. Getting the economy on track and the budget balanced should be priority #1. If that means putting off a vote on another subject a couple of months, so be it.

This discussion reminds me a little of the morons we had fiddling in Sacramento while California burned. Instead of taking care of our budget they took the time to deliberate and take a vote on changing the state rock! Because of some dubious claim that it had traces of asbestos. It would have to be dealt with eventually since property owners might get sued due to someone being exposed to it on their land, but it could have been dealt with after the high priority budget was taken care of.

I don't see any reason why the people in Washington can't deal with both issues, though. That what staff, committees, etc. are for. And after all, that legislation is already written by and the votes paid for by the special interest groups and corporations. Congressmen don't need to read it. They just need to see if their campaign contributors say yes or no.

Cynical enough?

[audtatious]

So, you think START is more important than US economics? Maybe they should address the steroid issue in major league sports again as a time waster next?

No, I'm just saying that the reasoning leaves much to be desired. "We can't decide this in November because we have economic troubles! This would be much better decided three months from now! Surely our economic troubles will be over!"

I don't see where the START treaty even needs to be considered until after we deal with our economic issues. Hell, we didn't even have a budget approved for 2010.

[heliochrome85]

I don't see where the START treaty even needs to be considered until after we deal with our economic issues. Hell, we didn't even have a budget approved for 2010.

because its an issue of national security. when viewed through that lens, it has sudden importance.


also, our economic issues are ones that can not be solved in the current political system. to believe otherwise is pie in the sky, even for a pragmatist like you matt.

[IBCoupe]

I don't see where the START treaty even needs to be considered until after we deal with our economic issues. Hell, we didn't even have a budget approved for 2010.

Tariq gave a decent response, but I'd go another route: because it's on our plate now. Look, I'm not saying it should be on top of the list, I'm just saying that the arguments made for it being at the bottom (so far down that simultaneous consideration is out of the question, apparently) are wholly unsatisfying.

I don't see a reason why Congress can't do both.

[audtatious]

I don't see where the START treaty even needs to be considered until after we deal with our economic issues. Hell, we didn't even have a budget approved for 2010.

because its an issue of national security. when viewed through that lens, it has sudden importance.


also, our economic issues are ones that can not be solved in the current political system. to believe otherwise is pie in the sky, even for a pragmatist like you matt.

Yet it's always been an issue of national security since the end of the cold war.

You are probably right about the current political system. Democrats want "X" and either Republicans "give in" or they are being obstructionists.

[audtatious]

I don't see where the START treaty even needs to be considered until after we deal with our economic issues. Hell, we didn't even have a budget approved for 2010.

Tariq gave a decent response, but I'd go another route: because it's on our plate now. Look, I'm not saying it should be on top of the list, I'm just saying that the arguments made for it being at the bottom (so far down that simultaneous consideration is out of the question, apparently) are wholly unsatisfying.

I don't see a reason why Congress can't do both.

If it were as simple as taking the treaty that expired in '09 and changing some percentage point to be higher I would tend to agree that a small amount of time would be needed in order to pass it, assuming there are no hidden agendas nor earmarks in the newly renegotiated treaty. Right now there is an agreement in place to continually honor the '09 treaty until the one that Obama negotiated can be passed. We are only talking about a delay until January.

[IBCoupe]

Why? What's so different about the economic and budgetary problems in January? What gives us any reason to believe there will be anything different?

That line of reasoning hasn't become any more satisfying, Matt.

[heliochrome85]

If it were as simple as taking the treaty that expired in '09 and changing some percentage point to be higher I would tend to agree that a small amount of time would be needed in order to pass it, assuming there are no hidden agendas nor earmarks in the newly renegotiated treaty. Right now there is an agreement in place to continually honor the '09 treaty until the one that Obama negotiated can be passed. We are only talking about a delay until January.

the republicans had asked for multiple vote delays since the treaty was signed in april. how much more time do they need to "study" the treaty? Also the only secret agenda is on the right given that suddenly the amountof money designated for modernization has increased since the intial proposal was laid forth. We arent talking an extension til January. We are talking a treaty that wont ever pass because of Republican obstructionalism with the coming class of "PATRIOTS"

[IBCoupe]

the republicans had asked for a vote delay since the treaty was signed in april.

I thought I had heard about this earlier in the year. So that's why it dropped from the media radar?

I remember at the time the analysis saying the biggest obstacle to getting the Russians to sign on was convincing them that the American Congress would ratify it.

[heliochrome85]

I remember at the time the analysis saying the biggest obstacle to getting the Russians to sign on was convincing them that the American Congress would ratify it.

shocking isnt it really?

[IBCoupe]

shocking isnt it really?

Nah. Predictable. Watching the Democrats control Congress is like watching a puppy hump a football - lots of effort, but not a lot to show for it.

[heliochrome85]

shocking isnt it really?

Nah. Predictable. Watching the Democrats control Congress is like watching a puppy hump a football - lots of effort, but not a lot to show for it.

id counter its like watching a democrat hump a football...




they really arent good at anything these days are they?

[heliochrome85]

also, on a side side side side note...
http://gothamist.com/2010/11/18/want_a_ ... ou_the.php

just incase isaac you are in need of some advice. i already got it for myself since mother is abroad.

[IBCoupe]

I maintain that the closest thing this country has ever had to a viable third party is, at any given time, half of the Democratic Party.

[IBCoupe]

Haha, that's nifty. My Mom's the Mah Jongg kind of Jewish Mother, so that means I've got a gaggle of them. I don't need my iPod doing the same thing.

[heliochrome85]

honestly, there are times where i seriously doubt why i even participate in political debate when i read about the democrats. its so aggrevating to see their complete and utter lack of back bone. its absolutely astonishing that this was the party of lincoln, and the party that passed civil rights.

and yes, im fairly certain it was the party of lincoln, since the repubs as we know them came much later.

[heliochrome85]

Haha, that's nifty. My Mom's the Mah Jongg kind of Jewish Mother, so that means I've got a gaggle of them. I don't need my iPod doing the same thing.

of course.

realistically, i just need to step into any deli here, and the app would be unneeded. ill say this, i could really go for a knish right now.

[IBCoupe]

honestly, there are times where i seriously doubt why i even participate in political debate when i read about the democrats. its so aggrevating to see their complete and utter lack of back bone. its absolutely astonishing that this was the party of lincoln, and the party that passed civil rights.

and yes, im fairly certain it was the party of lincoln, since the repubs as we know them came much later.

Republicans are just much better disciplined. They issue talking points (that's what the "talking points memo" is) in order to frame their debate, and then every major figure in their party parrots it. That's why it works, because they all do it. Democrats, on the other hand, wouldn't follow a talking point if it was even issued. There's an attitude among many in the Democratic Party that they can come up with a better, more persuasive argument. There's indignation at the thought of having a centralized message. And that's why it doesn't work. If five Republicans on five TV channels all speak in unison, to your average viewer, that's pretty powerful. When the response comes in a rag-tag, unorganized form that uses multiple arguments in different ways, it's harder to stand up to the natural tendency for us to believe what's told to us more than once.

[stebo0728]

Just sign the damn treaty, we'll figure out whats in it once we sign it. Nevermind that little clause about Russian dignitaries contolling the Federal Reserve now, no biggie
</sarcasm>

[IBCoupe]

Nobody's saying we don't look at what's inside. I'm just saying: it's 17 pages. Honestly, how long does it take? Did we elect a Congress of five-year-olds?

[heliochrome85]

Did we elect a Congress of five-year-olds?

you KNOW the answer to this is "Yes"

[audtatious]

If it were as simple as taking the treaty that expired in '09 and changing some percentage point to be higher I would tend to agree that a small amount of time would be needed in order to pass it, assuming there are no hidden agendas nor earmarks in the newly renegotiated treaty. Right now there is an agreement in place to continually honor the '09 treaty until the one that Obama negotiated can be passed. We are only talking about a delay until January.

the republicans had asked for multiple vote delays since the treaty was signed in april. how much more time do they need to "study" the treaty? Also the only secret agenda is on the right given that suddenly the amountof money designated for modernization has increased since the intial proposal was laid forth. We arent talking an extension til January. We are talking a treaty that wont ever pass because of Republican obstructionalism with the coming class of "PATRIOTS"

Maybe, maybe not. I've not been following it anyway but will stand by my original "He's not killing anything" (yet) statement. Hell, I'm hit or miss around here anyway because I'm really too busy with work/life to have valid discussions anymore. Just today I read some of my posts on here and don't know where I was going with them. What makes me good at my job makes me bad at debating unless I really take a lot of time to establish my point. I don't have that time.