Lugar Takes the Floor

It has been a joy to watch Lugar go up against Jon Kyl of Arizona over this treaty…. The next 24 hours will be fun for veteran Senate watchers.
-
Sure, as long as you hate America, and don’t care about our national security.
-
If you think that politics is something other than dinner theater entertainment, you are horrified that the Kyl wing of the GOP might be able to torpedo something this important despite every single grown-up who knows anything about anything begging him to stop.
-
God, you’re like the Jay Mariotti of Time Magazine.

I’m glad to see that someone inside the party is starting to call the Republicans on their knee jerk obstructionism. If the Dems were to pull something like this, holding up an arms treaty that had a direct impact on national security, under the Bush administration the Republicans would be howling at the moon and invoking 9/11-like images of destruction, calling the Dems traitors, questioning their patriotism, their understanding of the world we live in, etc…

In this case he is defending a treaty he took months to study before supporting and which he has since vigorously defended, rallying a formidable contingent of backers.

This and $3.25 will get you a Latte Grande as long as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) is minority leader and Barack Obama (D) is president.
.
Does Sen. Lugar not understand this?

.”..ten best Senators we identified in 2006.”

Kyl in the 10 best , for what? – being a parliamentary obstructionist?
Perhaps the “best” at genuflecting at the knees of his corporate donors , or the “best” at not showing an ounce of compassion for his fellow citizens who are ubemployed.
Enough of this “best” garbage. It’s so much inside the beltway conventional wisdom BS. Let’s just refer to Kyl to what those of us on the Left were referred to in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq – Kyl is unpatriotic, who in areas like the economy and national security, is selling this country down the river. He’s scum.

Well if I thought Senate Republicans as a group had any shame or actually believed in governing over posturing then Lugar would have a chance of convincing some of his colleagues to do the right thing here.

However, since all they see is it would be a win in the Obama column to hell with national security. To hell with listening to people who actually know what they are talking about.

“Lugar Takes the Floor”

Ya, them GOPers will steal the light fixtures too, if you give’em the chance.

….

Oh, and what Elvisberg said @1. If Kyl’s antics don’t generate disgust – instead of “joy” at the spectacle of Lugar having to wrestle with him – your perspective is just jacked, Calabresi.

I’m glad your having fun but unfortunately, it isn’t a game. This is one of those rare instances where it actually might be appropriate to call people’s patriotism into question.Of course the fact that the press corps uniformly refers to ratification as ‘a major victory for Obama’ helps fuel the fire.

You know. Lugar may be a stand up guy on this one issue, but the rest of the party?

Republican Hypocrisy at its worse.

How could anyone believe these people have an iota of integrity.

I read that as influential or powerful – the people who can sway people to their line of thinking. No ostensibly neutral publication could reasonably make an argument of best being who is actually doing the most to help the country since many Republicans think that “best” by those standards really does mean “he who dismantles the government the most to open up free reign of big business”. That said, the unimaginative title is incredibly misleading.

They gave him a win earlier today…. Not that most Liberals really call it a win but still.

Ah, come on. You people give the republicans far too little credit. The republicans know how to win battles. They know how to get their way. And they know how to fear monger to get just enough of the misinformed public to see things their way.
.
What the republicans don’t know how to do is govern. They just don’t have the integrity to do so.
.
As for this treaty being a “win for Obama”. Well, yeah. Another good for the country would be a win for any sitting president. That doesn’t mean that all of the president’s wins are good for the country so I just wish the media would stop using the phrase. Lets talk about what is good for the country for a change and not what would increase Obama’s chances of reelection.

As with my point in 4.1: there is no other way to impartially measure a “win”. What’s good for the country is guided by the opinions of the individual.

Unfortunately, there are many ways the vote could just falling short, but perhaps it just squeaks by. By my count, nine Republicans need to agree to confirm START. Along with Lugar, I would expect the “Yea” votes of our dear friends from Maine, the newly liberated woman from Alaska, plus retiring Voinovich, Graham, and then Brown and Kirk (who, I think, must recognize that that they are toast if they defy their essentially liberal states with this vote). It may come down to the vote of another outgoing senator – Judd Gregg of New Hampshire – who has his legacy to consider. That it comes down to this is appalling, but perhaps we’d better get used to it.

MASSIMO CALABRESI’S WEEKLY TOP 5 LIST OF FUN THINGS TO WATCH IN D.C.

5. Whether or not nihilistic GOP Senators will torpedo a national security treaty that is supported by everyone who knows anything about foreign policy. — “A joy to watch!”

4. Whether sadistic GOP Senators will succeed in insisting on deficit-busting tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires before they agree to extend unemployment benefits for millions of non-voluntarily unemployed Americans and their families. — “Nail-biting tension!”

3. Whether the U.S. government will concoct charges against Julien Assange, a non-U.S. citizen with no obligation to honor U.S. government document classifications, for publishing government leaks. — “Does the First Amendment still apply? Stay tuned!”

2. Whether soldiers and sailors with cooties who are openly gay must continue to be kicked out of the military. — “If there is a ticking time-bomb and the only arabic translator who can find it is openly gay, should he be permitted to do so? Veteran Senate watchers can’t wait to find out!”

1. Whether Richard Holbrooke will pull through emergency surgery from a ruptured aorta. — “A heart-stopper!”

Stay classy, Calabresi.

God, you’re like the Jay Mariotti of Time Magazine.

Hah! There’s a ‘journalist’ I had hoped to forget.

Has this joker ever responded to commentary?

Fun and games in our Capital. What a joy. Joy to the World.

Another alleged Republican needing to be primaried. Why this rush to sign a treaty with a country with a record of violating treaties at will?

Primaried?? What??? A country with a record of violating treaties at will?? USA? You should be ashamed for your lack of patriotism, but regardless of that, you should be more coherent.

I like to make up new words myself sometimes. But “primaried” is seriously lacking. I assume you mean something like a Tea Party hit on Lugar? Not likely, and your word for such a thing needs serious reworking. I know you can do it, what with all of the TP slogan masters.

Absolutely not. In his defense, I too would find it hard to read/respond to the comments if I were churning out this level of tripe on a regular basis. If I understand anything of his personality from what he writes, he’s probably still cursing at his editor-in-chief daily for having to post articles to the Swamp in the first place. Bring back Tumulty, please.

ps- calling him a ‘Joker’ is giving him way too much undeserved dignity. Try something with ‘ass’ and ‘clown’ in it.

‘Alleged Republican’. Hilarious. So now Rice, Scowcraft, Kissinger, H.W. Bush, and the entire Reagan team are considered RINOs for backing up Lugar, right?

Maybe whoever is in a paulejb-approved Republican party deserves a Calabresi-caliber media.

As a staunch proponent of START’s ratification, I think a lot of you are being unreasonable in your alleged outrage at Calabresi and/or Kyl. START’s ratification is not a dire necessity, certainly not something that needs to be passed this instant to protect national security. It’s a positive treaty, one that has both tangible and intangible benefits, respectively a reduction of immoral arms and improved relations with our recent nemesis, Russia. But, let’s not demonize those who find the debate interesting. Most analysts and observers of politics, be they journalists, professors, or specialists, are intrigued by political battles. There is nothing out of the ordinary about finding a Kyl-Lugar duel to be of interest. The United States will not find itself in a nuclear slug-fest tomorrow because of the debate and delayed ratification. Chill out, folks.

As well as having yet to respond to commentary (as jc points out, above), Calabresi has yet to write a post that didn’t leave me feeling vaguely nauseous. He’s a triple-threat: a crappy reporter, a craven blogger, and a man too thick to realize the potential benefits of interacting with his readership. As much as I generally dislike the posts of JNS, or Crowley, I would only ever apply one of those three labels to either of them. Calabresi, on the other hand, is 100% deserving of any scorn we heap upon him, and his focus here on theater vs. the import of the policy is unfortunately typical of the stuff he pushes here.

Exiled, can you offer some insight into what “our recent (I hope you meant former?) nemesis”, Russia might be thinking of this circus? They are committed to arms reduction. Is this a matter of American “exceptionalism” in all foreign policy matters, including nuclear arms limitation? Is the cold war really over? Or is it all about our President? I have no clue. Please enlighten us.

Anon,
I guess it is comments such as:
.
Sure, as long as you hate America, and don’t care about our national security.
…that really, really annoy me. Recognizing the intrigue -from a political scientist perspective- of this Kyl/Lugar rift is not synonymous with a lack of concern for American national security. Hyperbole is the rhetorical stratagem of a puerile mind.

Russia, stand by, we are going to gain great insight into the joy of strolling through the zoo that is Congress.

James,
Don’t patronize me. I said nothing that would suggest I believe in American exceptionalism, or that I think we should be immune to arms reduction. I support START wholeheartedly. Yet, it is not a matter of dire importance unless we really are still in the Cold War. Are we? You tell me.

Dire importance? Russia is put on hold while the TP/Republican clowns perform in the ring making faces at Obama? That is an excellent way to restart the Cold War.

Look, I never said that Kyl had good cause for the delay. What I have said is that finding this exchange and division within the GOP to be an interesting development in no way suggests that one has little or no concern for national security. To suggest otherwise is just more nonsensical partisan bullsh*t.
.
What is this fear mongering all about? Ratify or the Cold War is back? Question the usefulness of START and you’re anti-American? I thought only right-wingers used these tasteless stratagems?

OK, I give up. We agree that the START is important, and it needs to be ratified. Russia, with all their spies in our country, will understand the need of our politicians to puff, spray and blow dry their hair and strut around a bit.

And all deference to Lugar, who has very puffy hair.

@neo- when did Kyl ever ‘question the usefulness of START’? What he has repeatedly said is that he doesn’t want to vote before Christmas, i.e. before GOP reinforcements in the Senate will help him extract more concessions from his spineless opponents before he votes for a treaty that he has no serious objection against. It’s naked political gaming, with no core belief backing it up. That Calabresi finds it entertaining is fairly appalling, sorry. Incidentally, none of this is happening in a vacuum, and Calabresi’s history of similarly appalling articles removes any shadow of a doubt regarding his position after posting this turkey.

All I’m saying is just ease up a bit, pal. No needs to get so hyped up over every opportunity to lambaste a Republican. START will pass, and that’s a good thing. I don’t think anyone is genuinely concerned, however, that if it passes in two weeks as opposed to tomorrow that WWIII will break out.

@Exiled.
The reason the treaty is important isn’t just Russia. We need Russian cooperation if we want to have any leverage short of war with Iran. Jacking around on this treaty directly harms our credibility on a number of important fronts.

For people curious about our current author:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Anon,
I believe there are questions about START limiting mondernization programs.

You guys started the torches and pitchfork party without me?

But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is “extremely advanced” and involves “hundreds” of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and “the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled.”
.
Pretty much the only two names in that whole piece are Mohamed ElBaradei and Bush.
.
Thanks for digging that up, that’s an entirely new reason to despise Calabresi’s reporting.

Neo:
.
Further to what Paul said, START also provides for satellite and remote nuclear monitoring, as well as additional on-site inspections — all in the interest of keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.
.
I would think that in this day and age we could all agree that this is a Good Thing.

I would think that in this day and age we could all agree that this is a Good Thing.
.
Yes, we should. That’s why I support ratification. We should also all agree that A) delaying ratification will have no discernible negative effect and B) if START fails completely, we’ll be no worse off than we are now. Essentially, while START is a positive treaty, it is hardly a dire imperative.

Senator Richard Lugar is one of the smartest senators out of the 100. I don’t agree with a number of his political beliefs but that is based on ideological differences, not intellectual ones.
The GOP would be wise to regroup and reform and find a future GOP leader made of the same metal as Senator Richard Lugar. The Grand Old Party could even win my father vote back if they did. My father is a ideologically balanced Dwight Eisenhower mixed with an intellectually astute Nixon kind of guy. He also liked HW Bush a lot more than Reagan and GW lost his vote for republicans all together. There was not a chance in hell my father would support a ticket with Sarah Palin on it or anyone like her. The “tea party” low brows are poison for old school republican voters. They make somber men recoil.

@neo- and I believe that the “deficit hawks” concerns were addressed, and they still balked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111607258.html

Kyl’s decision came despite an administration offer Friday to pour an extra $4.1 billion into modernization of the nation’s nuclear complex. Because the treaty would reduce both sides’ stockpiles of nuclear weapons, Republicans have insisted that the administration spend more money to ensure that existing U.S. weapons are well maintained.

We should also all agree that A) delaying ratification will have no discernible negative effect and B) if START fails completely, we’ll be no worse off than we are now.
.
Nope, that’s the sticking point.
.

For the first time in 15 years, U.S. officials have lost their ability to inspect Russian long-range nuclear bases, where they had become accustomed to peering into missile silos, counting warheads and whipping out tape measures to size up rockets.
.
The inspections had occurred every few weeks under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. But when START expired in December, the checks stopped.
.
Meanwhile, in an obscure, fluorescent-lighted State Department office staffed round-the-clock, a stream of messages from Russia about routine movements of its nuclear missiles and bombers has slowed to a trickle.

.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081605422.html

Also see:
.

Currently, we have no verification regime to account for Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons. Two hundred and ninety seven (297) days have elapsed since American teams have been allowed to inspect Russian nuclear forces, and we are concerned that further inaction will bring unacceptable lapses in U.S. intelligence about Russia’s strategic arsenal. Without New START, we believe that the United States is less secure.

.
http://www.securityconsensus.org/2010/09/28/national-security-experts-and-top-military-officials-unite-to-push-senate-vote-on-new-start-treaty-5/
.
That was written on September 28th.
.
So if you’re okay with not inspecting Russia’s arsenal for over a year, then…groovy, I guess.

Also see, with respect to concerns about modernization:
.

The ten-year plan outlined in the Obama administration’s “Section 1251″ report to Congress calls for $80 billion over ten years for these NNSA weapons activities, and another $100 billion for updating or replacing strategic nuclear delivery systems. By any common-sense definition, this amounts to a very robust modernization plan that covers all aspects of the nuclear enterprise, including:
.
Enhancing nuclear warheads through NNSA’s Life Extension Program (LEP). The W87 Minuteman warhead has already been refurbished to last past 2025, and NNSA is requesting $63 million for additional work on this warhead in FY 2011. The B61-7 and B61-11 bombs for the B-2 bomber were recently refurbished for an additional 20 years. In 2009, NNSA began delivery of refurbished W76 Trident warheads with service lives of an additional 30 years. NNSA is requesting almost $1 billion over the next five years for an LEP study on the W78 Minuteman warhead. This ongoing process can continue indefinitely.
.
Modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex. The FY 2011 NNSA budget request includes large increases for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which would see its budget jump from $97 million in FY 2010 to $225 million in FY 2011. The Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge would increase from $94 million to $115 million.
.
Maintaining and replacing strategic delivery systems, including complete rebuilds of the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and Trident II Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile. Minuteman can serve until 2030, and Trident is expected to last until 2042. The service lives of Trident Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are being extended, and a new fleet of submarines is under development at an expected cost of $85 billion. The B-2 “stealth” bomber is being upgraded at a cost of $1 billion over the next 5 years. The Air Force is also planning to replace the Air-Launched Cruise Missile.

.
http://www.armscontrol.org/issuebriefs/newstartrealitycheck
.
I’m glad you’re all for ratifying START, but there is simply no valid reason for delaying it.

I don’t know, Cliff.
.
Why is it so imperative that we are tracking Russian stockpiles and inspecting their nuclear sites? If the Cold War is truly over, why is Russia’s nuclear cache an intelligence target more so than China’s, or India’s, or Israel’s? No, in my opinion, START is necessary not because it enables intelligence-gathering specifically on Russia’s activities, but rather because more broadly it reduces nuclear arms stockpiles in the world. To that end, START is necessary. However, whether 297 days have lapsed or another 30 days lapse on inspections is not really crucial at this point in time. And that is why I have no interest in demonizing those who do oppose START as unpatriotic fools risking America’s national security. That’s just fear mongering. The political backlash against Kyl and his ilk is based upon the fact that delays in ratifying START could pose problems for the Obama administration in its diplomacy with Russia. It’s a political problem, not a national security problem. I won’t carry water for that meme.

I think you’re being pretty naive about this, Neo.
First off, which incoming Republican is going to make this a top priority so that it is voted on in the first 30 days of the new session? Keep in mind, they’ve been fighting it for over a month without raising any legitimate concerns for why it shouldn’t be passed. Did any of the new Republicans campaign on passing START as a priority? Because they will be driving the agenda in the House now, and until they decide to pick it up, it will just continue to sit on the back burner- probably for another two years.
.
And, much as a respect your opinion, I think I’ll side with every single one of the last 15 Secretaries of State and say that yes, this is a priority to get through soon, and it shouldn’t be made to sit around while Kyl grandstands.

Well, clearly my opinion of Calabresi’s work doesn’t begin to approach your own. IOW, I don’t pay much attn. to his work, but I was thinking that I’d not seen any yellow boxes around his replies to commenters, even those less hostile to his work.
.
Honestly, I only pay close attn to Scherer and Klein’s posts. Ten contributors is a lot to keep track of and (as has almost always been the case) the commentary about the issues addressed by the pros is far more engaging.
.
The pros’ slants are so tainted by CW that they could be dispensed by a vending machine. Journalism, the craft of borg-like automatons.

And, much as a respect your opinion, I think I’ll side with every single one of the last 15 Secretaries of State…
.
Um, those are the same 15 Secretaries of State that I’m siding with. So, you respect my opinion and you agree with me. Pretty cool.
.
Seriosuly, though, I want START to pass. I want nuclear arms drastically reduced. However, the “imperative” that this pass now is not because we are in dire need of inspecting the stockpiles of the non-threatening, non-menacing Russia, but because passing START can ease US-Russian relations. I just wish the administration would come out and say that in addition to reducing arms levels, START is a diplomatic victory, rather than linking its passage to dire national security concerns. Please. This ain’t the 50′s no mo.

Exiled: It has been a year since we have been able to conduct nuclear inspections in Russia. The Republicans have known the content of the treaty since April. There no need to delay. Next year the Republicans will make sure it doesn’t get 67 votes. No win for Obama.
.
Richard Lugar has studied and spent years fighting to limit nuclear prolification and to control loose nukes. He is an honorable man looking out for American security.

Actually, I was fairly pleased with that bit of reporting. Let’s review what at the time was news in that brief piece, that is, facts unknown to the general public:

1. Iran has hundreds of operating uranium enriching centrifuges.
2. Iran has thousands of uranium refining centrifuges ready for assembling, a full cascade capable of refining uranium on an industrial scale.
3. The IAEA has concluded that Iran introduced uranium hexafluoride into functioning centrifuges, thereby violating its NPT obligations.

To review, prior to that piece, which appeared March 8, 2003, the public thought Iran “was constructing a facility” but had no idea of the scale of the operation or the extent of Iran’s ability to produce enriched uranium. The public did not know that Iran had violated the NPT. If you search the clips, I believe you’ll find a fair number of editors at major newspapers thought these facts important enough to report on the story, and credit me, in the following days.

For the record, I like the lively discussion on these comment threads and–most of the time–feel it unnecessary to weigh in. However, in the interest of familiarizing those Swampland readers who may not have seen my reporting for the magazine or elsewhere on the website, I offer a few links to stories for their consideration, all of which appeared in the last six months:

For those interested in regulatory capture, a deep dive into Glaxo’s outmaneuvering of the FDA over ten years:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2010028,00.html
For those who prefer field reporting on the economy:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2026914,00.html
For those interested in government secrecy, my cover on WikiLeaks and overclassification:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276,00.html

Thank you very much, Mr. Calabresi, for reading and responding to comments– and especially for such a forceful & detailed response!
-
That sort of thing makes Swampland more fun & edifying to read, reinforces our confidence in journalists, and makes America stronger.

Apr-
.
No need to heap praise upon Richard Lugar to me, I’ve been naming him for years when you and your ilk have insisted there is no “serious” conservative politician. I, as usual, agree with Lugar on his assessment of START and with his mission to drastically reduce nuclear arms levels in the world.
.
On the other hand, I am not at all convinced that you and many others actually give a d*mn about inspections in Russia. I know I certainly don’t. Russian nuclear sites are not an American concern, certainly not a dire concern, certainly not an imminent priority in the name of national security. Rather, I believe, that you want to say that inspections are the be-all, end-all of the treaty so that anyone who delays it can be written off as jeopardizing America’s national security, so that Obama can expeditiously get his political victory in passing START. It’s really no better than what Kyl is doing, pure political posturing. I don’t want to see the START treaty delayed, however, Kyl is playing political games, and those who are ripping him are also playing games. You’re playing games, because you’re not actually being honest about what this treaty accomplishes and you’re exaggerating the time-sensitive nature of the treaty in an effort to hand the administration a diplomatic tool with regard to Russia.