how far the GOP is willing to go

[bluefrog]

to deal the president a political defeat?

Ratification of the new START treaty shouldn't be controversial. It maintains a basic trend in the reduction of the U.S. and Russia's nuclear arsenals that started in the 1980s, when the first START treaty was proposed by President Reagan, signed by his successor, George H.W. Bush, and ratified by the Senate by overwhelming margins. The current military leadership and a number of Republican foreign policy experts, including Former Secretaries of State James Baker, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell have urged ratification, and three Senate Republicans actually voted the treaty out of committee. That's left the arguments against ratification to the GOP's foreign policy fringe, whose objections -- that the treaty leaves the U.S. with "only" thousands of nuclear weapons, undermines U.S. efforts at missile defense, and limits the use of conventional warheads -- are as Fred Kaplan points out, basically nonsense. That hasn't stopped conservatives from engaging in a dishonest propaganda campaign against the treaty, hoping to deal the president a humiliating political defeat.

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, it couldn't be that there are Senators who disagree with the statutes in the treaty itself. It just HAS to be political, because it's always about Obama.

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah, it couldn't be that there are Senators who disagree with the statutes in the treaty itself. It just HAS to be political, because it's always about Obama.

When Mitch McConnell says that the party's number one priority over the next two years is to ensure that Obama is defeated in the 2012 elections, yup. It's not like Republicans are being subtle...they have straightforwardly said that they won't be standing on any principle except "win the next Presidential election."

 

[maxiep]

When Mitch McConnell says that the party's number one priority over the next two years is to ensure that Obama is defeated in the 2012 elections, yup. It's not like Republicans are being subtle...they have straightforwardly said that they won't be standing on any principle except "win the next Presidential election."

Minstrel, you're smarter than that. It's not about Obama, it's about his ideology. Many of us--Republican, Democrat and Independent--object to the overall growth of the Federal Government. To roll back much of the agenda, Obama has to lose in 2012. McConnell just said it inartfully.

The issue is his policies, not Obama. In the case of START, many on the right want further investment in our nuclear arsenal as well as additional funds directed toward missle defense. The new START treaty makes those issues more difficult. Hell, the Duma hasn't even ratified it yet.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, you're smarter than that. It's not about Obama, it's about his ideology. Many of us--Republican, Democrat and Independent--object to the overall growth of the Federal Government.

maxiep, you're less naive than that. While some Americans certainly want small government, the Republican party (by which I mean the politicians in Washington) is only for limited government when Democrats are in power. Or, to put it more simply, they are for cutting things they don't like and for instituting things they do like. Just like Democrats.

While McConnell was certainly inartful, his mistake was being honest when better politicians are better at masking their true ambitions. They want the power. Do you think McConnell and group would be happy to lose elections to Democrats who "shared their principles" (whatever those might be)? If you think so, we'll have to agree to disagree. The number one aim is to win. The number two aim is to get through the policies they want, some of which limit government, some of which expand government.

 

[maxiep]

maxiep, you're less naive than that. While some Americans certainly want small government, the Republican party (by which I mean the politicians in Washington) is only for limited government when Democrats are in power. Or, to put it more simply, they are for cutting things they don't like and for instituting things they do like. Just like Democrats.

While McConnell was certainly inartful, his mistake was being honest when better politicians are better at masking their true ambitions. They want the power. Do you think McConnell and group would be happy to lose elections to Democrats who "shared their principles" (whatever those might be)? If you think so, we'll have to agree to disagree. The number one aim is to win. The number two aim is to get through the policies they want, some of which limit government, some of which expand government.

I don't think McConnell has the power he thinks he does. The power in the Republican party is in the House and specifically with people like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. McConnell just lost a battle against the Jr. Member from SC, Jim DeMint.

I think Republican opposition to the Obama agenda is based on principle, not naked power. The GOP lost its way and was thumped in two consecutive elections. Either they get the message this time, or here comes a third party.

 

[MrJayremmie]

In the case of START, many on the right want further investment in our nuclear arsenal as well as additional funds directed toward missle defense. The new START treaty makes those issues more difficult. Hell, the Duma hasn't even ratified it yet.

And they want to extend tax cuts for everyone.

At some point, we need to start considering our budget woes and stop the spending, spending, spending that started with the previous Republican administration.

 

[crandc]

What happened to debate? If you disagree with a proposal, debate it, don't block it.

 

[MrJayremmie]

What happened to debate? If you disagree with a proposal, debate it, don't block it.

Apparently the right doesn't know what this means. They've filibustered more than any minority in history.

I will never understand why even having a debate is so wrong? Why don't they want things to debate? Are they afraid that the American people will be able to see both sides of the argument?

 

[bluefrog]

In the case of START, many on the right want further investment in our nuclear arsenal as well as additional funds directed toward missile defense. The new START treaty makes those issues more difficult. Hell, the Duma hasn't even ratified it yet.

It's the wrong fight to fight for the three reasons mentioned in the article:
1. current military leadership urged ratification
2. Former Secretaries of State James Baker, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell urged ratification
3. three Senate Republicans actually voted the treaty out of committee

Plus, thousands of nuclear weapons is plenty and missile defense technology is expensive and ineffective

 

[maxiep]

And they want to extend tax cuts for everyone.

At some point, we need to start considering our budget woes and stop the spending, spending, spending that started with the previous Republican administration.

Perhaps let's not have socialized health care or extend unemployment for two years or waste $787B on pet projects? Defense is actually one of the things that is specifically called for in the Constitution.

 

[maxiep]

What happened to debate? If you disagree with a proposal, debate it, don't block it.

I wasn't aware that delaying discussion so the issues can be investigated further was the same as blocking it. I guess it was okay by you that the health care legislation was set up so there was no time to read the bill or allow amendments.

This treaty calls for reduction of our nuclear arsenal by 30%. It's a big deal. It will be debated, but everyone that votes on it should be brought up to speed.

 

[maxiep]

It's the wrong fight to fight for the three reasons mentioned in the article:
1. current military leadership urged ratification
2. Former Secretaries of State James Baker, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell urged ratification
3. three Senate Republicans actually voted the treaty out of committee

Plus, thousands of nuclear weapons is plenty and missile defense technology is expensive and ineffective

You do know that the writer of that editoral works for the American Prospect, right? The issues involved aren't so simple.

Thousands of nuclear weapons aren't enough when you consider what's left after a first strike. That's why we have redundancy; it's not for shits and giggles. As for missle defense, the systems may not work perfectly now, but they're a lot better than they used to be and will continue to improve. I prefer to be protected rather than to be held hostage by the Russians and Chinese. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War. I don't want to have a conversation with my son like I had with my mother if we ever got into a nuclear war. Weakening our defensive capabilities (including our offensive threat) isn't something in which I'm particularly interested.

 

[bluefrog]

You do know that the writer of that editoral works for the American Prospect, right?

I didn't know that but aren't you the one who advocates arguing the message and not the messenger?

Thousands of nuclear weapons aren't enough when you consider what's left after a first strike. That's why we have redundancy; it's not for shits and giggles. As for missle defense, the systems may not work perfectly now, but they're a lot better than they used to be and will continue to improve. I prefer to be protected rather than to be held hostage by the Russians and Chinese. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War. I don't want to have a conversation with my son like I had with my mother if we ever got into a nuclear war. Weakening our defensive capabilities (including our offensive threat) isn't something in which I'm particularly interested.

But the military leadership wants it. I understand your viewpoint but these guys know what it takes to defend the nation.

 

[BGrantFan]

Apparently the right doesn't know what this means. They've filibustered more than any minority in history.

I will never understand why even having a debate is so wrong? Why don't they want things to debate? Are they afraid that the American people will be able to see both sides of the argument?

Huh?

 

[bluefrog]

Huh?

3 second Google search
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9974807

 

[BGrantFan]

3 second Google search
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9974807

That article says nothing about the GOP having the most filibusters in history. Also, it was written on March 1st, 2010, which I find fascinating considering that the GOP only had 40 sitting senators until Scott Brown was seated on Febuary 10, 2010, meaning that the GOP must have had the most filibusters EVARRRR in only 20 days with 41 senators?

This is why I can't take most people seriously regarding politics.

Q: How did a party with 40 senators filibuster anything from January 2009 to February 2010?

A: They couldn't unless some people in the Dem caucus joined them.

Blame the Democrats for the filibusters. The GOP didn't have the numbers for any filibusters.

 

[Denny Crane]

maxiep, you're less naive than that. While some Americans certainly want small government, the Republican party (by which I mean the politicians in Washington) is only for limited government when Democrats are in power. Or, to put it more simply, they are for cutting things they don't like and for instituting things they do like. Just like Democrats.

While McConnell was certainly inartful, his mistake was being honest when better politicians are better at masking their true ambitions. They want the power. Do you think McConnell and group would be happy to lose elections to Democrats who "shared their principles" (whatever those might be)? If you think so, we'll have to agree to disagree. The number one aim is to win. The number two aim is to get through the policies they want, some of which limit government, some of which expand government.

Of course they want to win. I see nothing wrong with McConnell's statement - that's politics and it's a full contact sport. Republicans tried real hard to defeat Reid in Nevada, their goal was to defeat him. Democrats tried real hard to defeat Jeb Bush in Florida, too. So I have to ask, so what?

As to the START Treaty, if it's good for the country, I hope it passes. I am all in favor of cutting down on nuclear arsenals, but to a point. Unlike other posts I've read, I don't think we're still in a cold war and I don't see the reason to have more than 30-50 nukes. That's enough to be a deterrent and enough to assure we have a working arsenal.

On the other hand, Obama's foreign policy style and negotiation style doesn't sit well with republicans (or the world leadership for that matter). Maybe it is too unlike previous treaties to be reasonable to pass.

 

[Denny Crane]

That article says nothing about the GOP having the most filibusters in history. Also, it was written on March 1st, 2010, which I find fascinating considering that the GOP only had 40 sitting senators until Scott Brown was seated on Febuary 10, 2010, meaning that the GOP must have had the most filibusters EVARRRR in only 20 days with 41 senators?

This is why I can't take most people seriously regarding politics.

Q: How did a party with 40 senators filibuster anything from January 2009 to February 2010?

A: They couldn't unless some people in the Dem caucus joined them.

Blame the Democrats for the filibusters. The GOP didn't have the numbers for any filibusters.

While I think this is a very good point, another very good point is there were only a handful of bills repeatedly filibustered.

The methodology behind the data is flawed. For one, the cloture votes could have failed 100-0 votes and the republicans would get the "blame." And the Democrats could have moved Cloture on the Health Care bill 365 times in 365 days and the republican record would be 365 filibusters. (Even with 60 Democrats in the senate).

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't see why there's a rush to pass START during the lame duck session.

 

[Minstrel]

Of course they want to win. I see nothing wrong with McConnell's statement - that's politics and it's a full contact sport. Republicans tried real hard to defeat Reid in Nevada, their goal was to defeat him. Democrats tried real hard to defeat Jeb Bush in Florida, too. So I have to ask, so what?

maxiep asked what makes people think the Republican efforts are about bringing down Obama rather than principled stand. I explained what would give people that impression.

Whether you think it's good that politics is more a sporting event than actual principled attempts to govern (which goes to both parties) is a matter of personal opinion.

 

[bluefrog]

I don't see why there's a rush to pass START during the lame duck session.

START sounds like a no-brainer. It's had bi-partisan support in the Senate. Maybe Dems thought it was something they could easily get accomplished and actually be productive in this session.

 

[Stevenson]

2 things -

1. The GOP has proven once again it is about as unpatriotic a group as there is.

2. They didn't care about budget deficits while they were in power. Remember, Clinton balanced the budget. The Dems are the party of fiscal conservatism. Bush 2 didn't even include his wars in his budget.

 

[Denny Crane]

maxiep asked what makes people think the Republican efforts are about bringing down Obama rather than principled stand. I explained what would give people that impression.

Whether you think it's good that politics is more a sporting event than actual principled attempts to govern (which goes to both parties) is a matter of personal opinion.

I think it's all about counting the votes to get stuff passed. If defeating Reid shows a certain public opinion, the votes (among our representatives or senators) are easier to get for certain things. If the president stands in the way with the veto pen, the votes have to be super majority.

 

[BGrantFan]

The Dems are the party of fiscal conservatism.

Um, OK.

Thanks for the laugh on a very bad morning as a Blazer fan!

 

[Stevenson]

I give evidence and proof. Prove otherwise with facts, or don't say anything at all.

It was Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 that ran up the deficits. Clinton balanced the budget, and Obama added a trickle to the GOP debt river.

 

[BGrantFan]

I give evidence and proof. Prove otherwise with facts, or don't say anything at all.

It was Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 that ran up the deficits. Clinton balanced the budget, and Obama added a trickle to the GOP debt river.

Again, thanks for the laughs!

Hint - take a look at who controlled the House during Reagan and Bush 1, and then tell me who controlled the House under Clinton in 1995.

Both parties are to blame. Calling Democrats fiscally conservative is absolutely priceless!

 

[maxiep]

I give evidence and proof. Prove otherwise with facts, or don't say anything at all.

It was Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 that ran up the deficits. Clinton balanced the budget, and Obama added a trickle to the GOP debt river.

One of the reasons I'm not a Republican is that they haven't had the fiscal discipline over the past 30 years to cut the federal budget along with cutting tax rates. Reagan lowered tax rates dramatically and doubled the amount of revenue coming into the Treasury. Imagine if he would have had the disclipline to hold the budget at a relatively sane level; George HW Bush wouldn't have inherited a debt at all. That being said, the last Republican congress under George W. Bush posted a high deficit of roughly $160B. The last budget passed under a Democratic house under Barack Obama was over $1.3T. If that's a "trickle", so's this:

 

[Stevenson]

BGrant Fan: Latest example - Conservatives in Congress want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Cost: $830 billion over 10 years (including the cost of debt servicing).

GOP fiscal conservatism is a fiction.

Where are YOUR facts?????

 

[Denny Crane]

BGrant Fan: Latest example - Conservatives in Congress want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Cost: $830 billion over 10 years (including the cost of debt servicing).

GOP fiscal conservatism is a fiction.

Where are YOUR facts?????

How on earth is a tax cut actual government spending?

I posted this in another thread... If the government takes in $1T and spends $1T, the budget is balanced. If it takes in $2T and spends $2T, the budget is balanced. Etc.

Spending is the problem, not taxing. If the government taxes 100% of GDP and spent 100% + $1, there'd still be a deficit.