Senate has votes to ratify START treaty: To floor this week

[jefferson_dem]

Senate has votes to ratify START treaty: To floor this week
By Lynn Sweet on December 13, 2010 4:54 PM | No Comments

WASHINGTON--The Obama White House has the votes to ratify the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, with the Senate preparing for a vote this week, the Sun-Times has learned. The vote could come as early as Wednesday, after the vote on the tax package Obama negotiated with the Republicans. The Senate on Monday was advancing the tax legislation, with enough votes to end debate.

The New START vote will proceed because of a loophole in the Nov. 29 letter all 42 Republicans signed not to advance legislation until the tax deal and government funding bills are passed. The letter states that the GOP senators will "not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all Americans. THE LOOPHOLE: A vote to ratify a treaty is different under Senate rules than a vote to advance legislation, which needs a cloture vote. No cloture vote will be needed for the Senate to take up New START.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/12/senate_has_votes_to_ratify_sta.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. How About DADT?

.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. That was rejected last week. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Harry Reid Promised To Bring It Up For A Vote Again

Ensign, Murkkoski, and Brown said they would vote for repeal after the tax deal was done. It's a matter of time...

[AlinPA]

3. That can't be right. They don't have the votes because Kyl controls the

republicans on this. It needs 2/3 of the senate, and that is an impossible number of votes from the republicans.

[Exilednight]

5. This may be the legislation that Obama horse traded for. Give Republicans their .............

tax cut and get the START treaty in return.

I am not saying that this is a fact, but it makes sense when you think about it. Personally, I think it was a lousy trade.

[pnorman]

7. "...a lousy trade". You mightt be right on that, or wrong for that matter.

It may be too early to tell. But think of Obama as considering a Democratic win in 2012 as his TOP priority. And then consider him as trading ground (inch by grudging inch) for time. Shouldn't a Democratic win in 2012 be our goal too? Think of the alternative outcome!

[Exilednight]

8. Obama hit a new low in approval ratings with liberals. He's down to 69%. No nominee wins the

office without the base. It's the liberal base that goes out on the hot days of summer and the cold nights of winter and go door to door to push voters to the poll.

Some people on here have argued that it's independents that determine the outcome of elections, but it's the base that helps independents make up their mind.

Personally, if Obama wins renomination, yes - I will vote for him. But I will not go door to door and campaign for him like I did two years ago. I can not look someone in the eye and ask them to vote for a man whose policies on major issues go against everything I believe in as a liberal.

[OhioBlue]

9. He has time to regain ground with the base.

IMHO - he had to do what he did to get things through the lame duck. He HAD to pass the middle class tax cuts - that campaign promise is the biggest factor for independents. He also needed to extend unemployment.

He's trying to get DREAM, DADT and START through before we seat the new Republican Congress Reps and senators. I doubt he will make any ground on DREAM or DADT with the new congress and those are important for the base.

My guess is 2011 will have some bipartisan legislation. If we can get a transportation bill approved that could have a stimulus (infrastructure) affect. Maybe we'll get an energy bill - probably not one that we'll be entirely happy with - but one that is a give and take and has incentives for renewables and conservation.

Hopefully the WH messaging gets better and after they get some important legislation behind them (remember we didn't even pass a budget in the Dem house this year) - they can start focusing more on "the base".

[Exilednight]

11. I am sorry, but for me his sins are way too big. HCR is a total bust, this tax compromise

is a total joke and will end up doing a lot more long term harm than good - just like Clinton did with NAFTA -, Iraq is a mercenary bait and switch, and the he extended some of the most unconstitutional parts of the PATRIOT ACT.

[pnorman]

12. An EMPHATIC vote has a "multiplier effect",

but a wishy-washy "hold my nose and vote" does NOT. That may be the determining factor in what WILL be the most important election for many years to come.

The choice is yours.

[Exilednight]

13. The choice was Obama's. His policy decisions are

shit on a stick and he expects us to go door to door and call it sunshine.

Think of this as MY FORM OF COMPROMISE. I'll vote for him if he wins renomination, but I will not walk around with shit on a stick and call it sunshine.

[pa28]

6. Incredible that the Republicans would hold a non-political item like START hostage.

wow.

[AlinPA]

10. A foreign policy success for the President cannot happen with the republicans. There is nothing

they will support now. Nothing. Anything that looks like the President or the administration could make progress, even on military matters or national security will be frustrated by the republicans.