Is this any way to ratify a treaty? (In case you were wondering what it takes to get a 2/3 vote in today's Senate)

Speaking at a START-theme press conference Tuesday, AZ Sen. Jon Kyl earns a hearty smile from that much-loved though unfortunately now-deceased comic actor Henry Gibson. Oh wait, some sources are claiming that the smiler happy-go-lucky AL Sen. (and Henry Gibson look-alike) "Just Jeff" Sessions.

by Ken

This looks to me like one of those cases where the problem is the old newspaper one of a lazy and/or ax-grinding headline-writer rather than the reporting that follows.

On washingtonpost.com today reporter Mary Beth Sheridan (with credited contributions from the paper's Walter Pincus and Anne Kornblut -- some pretty high-powered helpers there!) has a piece headlined "Arms treaty approval a win for Obama, but GOP critics are gaining momentum." It just struck me as odd, and distinctly against the grain, to see reporting about "GOP critics gaining momentum" at a time when the media's traditionally horse-race-fixated vantage point (who gains? who loses?) is singing hymns of praise to the president. To what extent those hymns are deserved is an interesting but separate question. Isn't that what the Village media types are all saying? Oh, sure, the Village gadflies aren't giving up on the attack, so for example WaPo pundit Dana Milbank warns the president about getting too big for his britches. But generally the pundits are giving the prez Full Village Credit for his rip-roaring "comeback" of the last couple of weeks. That's the kind of performance that gets their attention and respect.

As far as I can tell, though, the Post headline-writer is just grinding his/her own ax with regard to those GOP critics and their momentum. What the piece turns out to be is a sort of behind-the-scenes look at What It Took to get the new START treaty ratified. And I'm sorry though not surprised to find that it wasn't pretty, and had less to do than one might have supposed with "principle." I'm thinking the making of legislative action distinctly recalls the old wisdom about the making of sausage: You don't want to know what goes into it, because if you find out, you may not be able to swallow the damned thing.

Here are the sorts of questions that are raised in the piece:

* Can Arizona GOP old-style hard-right Sen. John Kyl be bought? (A: Seriously do you have to ask?)

* How high a price would you have to pay for Senator Kyl's thumbs-up? (A: Pretty high, but apparently not unaffordable, and again maybe not the kind of price you might expect, ideologically speaking.)

* If you and Senator Kyl agree on terms for the purchase, you can trust that he'll deliver, right? (A: Ha ha!)

Now the piece does note that President Obama faced some challenge from foreign leaders regarding his status in the wake of the crushing midterm elections. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, that noted authority on American democracy, did take the opportunity of seeing our president in Yokohama after an economic summit to ask whether the election results were likely to jeopardize ratification of the new START. And the anonymous source -- the Post now being an acknowledged world leader in its use of anonymous sources -- tipped off the reporters that the Russian's concern "had an impression" on Obama.

As far as I know, though, President Medvedev doesn't qualify as a "GOP critic" of the president.

As for Senator Kyl, well, this you're going to enjoy, I think:

There had always been what another White House official called a "healthy skepticism" about whether Kyl, the second-ranking Republican, had been negotiating in good faith. A savvy conservative steeped in arms-control issues, Kyl had helped defeat the 1999 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, dealing a blow to the Clinton administration.

But Kyl's main concern this time hadn't seemed to be the treaty's central issues, such as the number of warheads allowed, but instead modernization of the remaining nuclear weapons.

While the president was in Asia, we've learned,

the administration had secretly sent a high-level team including Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of U.S. nuclear forces, to Arizona to tell Kyl the administration would commit an extra $4.1 billion for nuclear modernization, on top of an earlier pledge of $10 billion.

Kyl seemed happy with the offer, officials said.

But three days after Obama's meeting with Medvedev, White House aides were astonished to learn from a news release by Kyl that he believed there wasn't enough time to consider the treaty during the lame-duck session.

"That was one of the lowest moments of our time in government," said the senior official.

Oops!

Officials believed that pushing the treaty into the next Congress would jeopardize its passage, since Republicans had picked up six seats in the midterm elections.

Now, the administration had to decide whether to proceed without Kyl.

The Kyl statement arrived as Biden was meeting with senior officials in the White House Situation Room to discuss Iraq. Talk turned immediately to New START. Later, senior aides huddled with Obama in the Oval Office.

"Both the president and vice president said to us, 'Look, this is too important to let die like this,' " Rhodes said.

The next day, Obama called Kyl to say he would push for New START.

The ensuing White House crusade for ratification stressed that the new START is a continuation of policies not only championed but in fact negotiated by previous Republican administrations. Still, I guess you never know what you're going to find when you start turning these rocks over. Retiring Ohio Sen. George Voinovich --

stunned the White House on Nov. 17 by declaring he couldn't support the treaty until he had assurances it wouldn't harm U.S. allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe.

Within days, Obama used a NATO summit in Lisbon to highlight international support for the pact - including from a group of Eastern European and Baltic leaders who called for treaty passage at a news conference.

Voinovich's concerns were assuaged by the speeches, as well as by a vow by Obama to consider allowing Poles to travel visa-free to the United States.

Which is certainly good news for traveling Poles. And, apparently, a clinching reason for . . . um, for supporting a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty with Russia?

OK, sorry, I'm still not finding the part in the article about those GOP critics of the president gaining momentum. But I don't hold that against the reporter or her journalistic A-team helpers. She hasn't really gathered that much behind-the-scenes dirt, but what she has gathered makes for an interesting read. And while I try not to let those apprehensions about the stuff that goes into the making of sausage don't usually deter me from eating the end product, even this small glimpse into what it takes to ratify a treaty these days makes my gut kind of queasy.

#

Whoremonger David Vitter Takes A Swing At George Voinovich

I doubt serial adulterer and whoremonger David Diapers Vitter personally fire-bombed the car of a Stormy Daniels campaign advisor-- although I hope the police ask where he was at the time of the incident. I know where he was yesterday afternoon-- slamming fellow Republican Senator George Voinovich (OH) and defending the honor of the Confederacy and it's racist, reactionary politics. (Recall that Voinovich had blamed the deterioration in the Republican Party on Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other southern radical right politicians who are out of touch with mainstream America.)

"I'm on the side of conservatives getting back to core conservative values," said Mr. Vitter, Louisiana Republican and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "There are a lot of us from the South who hold those values, which I think the party is supposed to be about. We strayed from them in the past few years, and that's why we performed so badly in the national elections."

...Mr. Vitter also criticized Mr. Voinovich for voting last week against a failed amendment sponsored by Mr. Vitter and Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, to expand Americans' ability to carry concealed weapons.

"He's a moderate, really wishy-washy," Mr. Vitter said.

Yesterday Voinovich sided with Democrats on a number of votes that pitted die-hard right-wing obstructionists against a bipartisan majority trying to keep the government functioning in a productive way. For example, he voted against Coburn's gratuitous amendment to cut the funding for the Department of Energy, against Lamar Alexander's amendment to cut off TARP money to auto manufacturers, and against another gratuitous obstructionist amendment from Coburn, this one to harass energy and water development projects. Vitter, of course, voted for all 3 bills because Vitter wants President Obama to fail so badly that he doesn't care if the whole country falls apart. As expected, Vitter also announced, via Twitter, that he will vote against confirming Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Louisiana has a reputation for tolerating misbehavior. Witness former Gov. Earl Long's cavorting with stripper Blaze Starr in the 1950s, former Gov. Edwin Edwards' frequent one-liners about his reputation as a womanizer and former Congressman William Jefferson's re-election to a ninth term after FBI agents said they found $90,000 in bribes he'd taken stashed in his freezer.

But if polls show the first-term Vitter struggling, Republicans could decide he is too weak to hold the seat, the analysts said. His biggest threat then could come from the right, possibly from Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, who already has statewide name recognition, or even Gov. Bobby Jindal, who so far has denied any interest in the race.

For now, that scenario appears unlikely, and with qualifying for the primaries less than a year away, time is growing short for potential opponents to start raising money for a credible campaign.

"Someone's going to have to announce soon," said Chervenak, who added that Vitter is likely hoping there is not another Republican scandal to remind voters of his own transgressions-- "another Mark Sanford or something like that."

UPDATE: Stormy Being Pressured To Get Out Of The Race Because Of A Domestic Violence Charge

Stormy Daniels-- a far more formidable opponent than conflicted and pathetic Louisiana Blue Dog Charlie Melancon, presumably the loser the Democrats plan to run against Vitter-- was arrested Saturday for punching out her husband. She faces jail. Vitter, who was been hiring prostitutes for his entire career-- and has been exposed and force to admit that he did as much-- has never been charged with a crime, even though hiring a prostitute is a criminal offense in Louisiana. Funny how the law works for lawmakers, huh? The guy admitted it... on TV! The spokesperson for the Louisiana Democratic Party, Kevin Franck remarked appropriately "Last time I checked, you don't find core Southern values in the places David Vitter has been found... If David Vitter can lead his party back to their conservative values, maybe Larry Craig can give them tips on bathroom etiquette and Mark Sanford can recommend a really good restaurant in Buenos Aires."

George Voinovich Lashes Out Against Far Right GOP Extremists Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn

"Disgusting things you'd never anticipate"

We've asked it before-- and in the words of the B-52's-- who's to blame? Who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party? One might be tempted to say "the death" of the Republican Party, but history tells us that the Republicans will come back and that we'll look forward to that day as the Democrats descend into the dark bowels of the complete corruption that already dominates almost as much of it as has dominated the GOP for so long.

But respected Ohio senior Senator George Voinovich thinks he knows what has caused the temporary demise-- what and who-- at least for his own state of Ohio. He told the Columbus Dispatch “We got too many Jim DeMints (R-SC) and Tom Coburns (R-OK). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr.' People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?'"

Can the same be said for GOP trouble around the country? In yesterday's NY Times, John Harwood contrasts the dwindling number of Republican moderates interested in goverance to the neo-Confederate fanatics interested in... wrecking government and preventing President Obama from having a successful presidency. Harwood askes us to behold "the slight, dour spokesman for orthodox Republicanism. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, leader of the shrunken Republican minority, will never be mistaken for a bodybuilder or a movie star"... or a moderate.

In his Southern-accented monotone, the Alabama native urges colleagues on Capitol Hill to block President Obama’s agenda and lower their sights toward incremental changes in health and energy policy. While Mr. Schwarzenegger exhorts the White House to “never give up,” Mr. McConnell criticizes the president’s push to “raise taxes in the middle of a recession” to cover those without insurance.

Six months after President George W. Bush left the stage, neither brand of Republicanism fares especially well with the public. But there is no doubt which holds more midsummer box-office appeal among the party faithful-- and it is not the Terminator’s.

Wingnut fanatics are livid, attacking Voinovich already and reminding everyone that he stopped one of Bush's most horrible appointments, clueless fascist dupe John Bolton. They much prefer slash and burn obstructionists like Coburn and DeMint, who, like them and their leader Rush Limbaugh, would rather see America fail than Obama succeed. Who's to blame? The B-52's are from Georgia, but unlike lunatic fringe politicians like Johnny Isakson, Newt Gingrich, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jim Marshall, Jack Kingston, John Linder, John Barrow, Nathan Deal, Phil Gingrey, Saxby Chambliss and Paul Broun, they're not to blame.

Another Republican Senator Calls It Quits After Helping Bush Bring The Country To Its Knees-- Who Will Replace Voinovich?

Although George Voinovich had been elected a state representative and, in 1978, Ohio's Lt. Governor, his debut on the national scene didn't really come until he resigned as Lt. Governor after one year to run against-- and beat-- Cleveland Mayor Dennis Kucinich. Later, after a disastrous run for the U.S. Senate in 1988, Voinovich was elected Governor of Ohio. My own awareness of him came because of the tremendous support (both as mayor and governor), to the tune of $65 million, he offered the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. Since 1999 he has been a U.S. Senator and, at least in the beginning, was one of the Republicans most willing to vote with the Democrats on behalf of working families. (Right wing fanatics still haven't forgiven him.) And you may recall that he broke with the far right by refusing to back Bush's choice of extremist sociopath John Bolton as UN ambassador.

Today Voinovich announced that he would retire from the Senate after finishing his second term in 2010. Demographic and political trends, as well as recent polls, showed that he would probably lose a bid for a third term. His excuse for skipping out on the job?

"I have never seen the country in such perilous circumstances.  Not since the Great Depression and the Second World War have we been confronted with such challenges, as a nation and as a world," Voinovich said. "I must devote my full time, energy and focus to the job I was elected to do, the job in front of me, which seeking a third term-- with the money-raising and campaigning that it would require-- would not allow me to do."

OK... I hope some of his GOP colleagues come to identical conclusions, particularly obstructionist extremists like Jim DeMint (R-SC), David Diapers Vitter (LA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK). But what's on everyone's mind now is who's going to be Ohio's next U.S. Senator?

There are four likely Republicans eyeing the seat: Bush's spectacularly failed Director of the Office of Management and Budget (as well as inept U.S. Trade Representative), ex-Congressman Rob Portman; John Kasich, another former Republican congressman, although he had been gearing up to run a hopeless campaign for governor; defeated ex-Senator Mike DeWine; and former vote-stealin' Secretary of State, the much-loathed Ken Blackwell. Four complete losers. The Democratic Party's most likely nominee is Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, although popular Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who did a decent job cleaning up after Blackwell, is also a top contender. There are also four members of Congress considering the race, 2 progressives (Betty Sutton and Mary Kaptur), a moderate (Tim Ryan) and a reactionary whose voting record looks suspiciously Republican (Zack Space). And what about Paul Hackett? [UPDATE: Paul's not interested, according to a mutual friend.]


UPDATE: SENATE "LEADERSHIP" BACKTRACKS ON BURRIS... AGAIN

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Illinois senior senator and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin said in a Monday statement that the Senate would accept the credentials of Roland Burris. He should be sworn in later this week. I wonder if Reid is embarrassed. Even Oklahoma kook Jim Inhofe likes Burris! They wound up having dinner at the Monocle and afterwards Inhofe said “I was very much impressed with him. From my little, meager research, I thought, ‘This guy looks like Senate material’.”

And you know that Florida Senate seat Mel Martinez is giving up in 2010? The one Jeb isn't running for? It looks like Rep Kendrick Meek will be announcing his candidacy tomorrow.

Will Obama Be Able To Save Us From Depression-- Even With Lunatic Fringe Republicans Like Jim Bunning Screaming "Bring It On!"

Jim Bunning, senile extremist hellbent on bring on another Depression

It sounds like Obama has some solid plans in store for turning the economy around, although he'll probably be unable to implement them without... Snowe

President-elect Barack Obama committed Saturday to the largest public works construction program since the creation of the interstate highway system a half-century ago as he seeks to put together a plan to resuscitate the reeling economy.

With unemployment on the rise and no end to the recession in sight, Mr. Obama began highlighting elements of the economic recovery program he is trying to fashion with Congressional leaders in hopes of being able to enact it shortly after being sworn in on Jan. 20.

Mr. Obama’s remarks sought to expand the definition of traditional work programs for the middle class, like infrastructure projects to repair roads and bridges, while also pushing a federal effort to bring in new-era jobs in technology and so-called green jobs.

In short this is what he's proposing:

Ø  Embark on a large-scale effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient;
 
Ø  Make the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since President Eisenhower established the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s – creating millions of jobs and compelling states to act quickly and make smart investments;
 
Ø  Create jobs and help our children compete by launching the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen;
 
Ø  Renew our information superhighway by boosting broadband deployment in communities across America;
 
Ø  Modernize our health care system so that every hospital and doctor's office is using cutting-edge technology and every American has access to electronic medical records.

Let's assume for a minute, as Gail Collins did in today's Times, that reactionary Democrats like Landrieu, Nelson and Pryor (not to mention Holy Joe) stay on the reservation and that a couple of Republicans can be moved to abandon partisan warfare (against America) now and then. How will the Republican Party-- determined to move the sundial back in the direction of 1200 AD in 2012-- define itself while Obama is trying to rescue America from the catastrophe their policies have caused?

Tom Curry at MSNBC took a stab at it by looking at the likely scenario for the reactionary party in 2010. He spoke with Democratic economist Rob Shapiro who explained that “GOP opposition to the bailout seems to embody the general Republican approach of ‘no matter how bad things are, you’re on your own.’ Even though the public may oppose this bailout, they are going to even more strongly oppose deterioration in the economy without a bailout... If the economy turns significantly worse after the failure of the auto companies, the public will blame it on those who helped create the conditions that let the economy deteriorate further.” And Curry points to the 2010 Kentucky Senate race as the perfect test case.

When he ran in 2004, Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican, won his seat by only by only 1.4 percent-- and the Cook Political report rates his 2010 race as a “toss-up.”

Although he did not show up for Thursday’s Banking Committee hearing, Bunning said two weeks ago that the essential issue is “whether the federal government should intervene in the private-sector economy. And I believe it should not.”

He added that if Chrysler and General Motors went into bankruptcy or liquidation, “I think that’s probably the best thing that can happen. Then there will be a reorganization and they’ll be able to jettison things they couldn’t ordinarily jettison, like health care benefits, like pension benefits and there will be someone to pick those up like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.”

The firms would “may come out of bankruptcy a heck of a lot better off than they go into it.”

If Bunning is a crazed far right extremist-- and he certainly is, one of the craziest of them all-- then Republican George Voinovich (R-OH) is what you would call a mainstream conservative. He doesn't see the world in neat little black and white prepackaged boxes like Bunning (who is also severely senile and barely able to function-- not that that prevented him from being elected in 2004). A couple weeks ago Voinovich, who must also face the voters in 2010, acknowledged that "bankruptcy could trigger a deep recession and send us over the cliff. If these companies are allowed to fail, taxpayers will wonder why Congress failed to act."

We're already in a deep recession and probably close to depression territory. Voinovich, unlike Bunning and the extremists from his party, favors a responsible rescue plan. He and Arlen Specter (R-PA) are co-sponsors of legislation seeking to rescue the Big 3 automakers. Here's President-elect Obama talking about his plans this morning:

The Key To Palin May Be Self-Imposed Ignorance

Republicans are counting on Obama's statement regarding "sharing the wealth" as something that will turn off voters. Predictably, it's having the opposite effect. So while a clueless rubber stamp like Ohio Bush puppet George Voinovich whines that Obama is a "socialist," even a Republican-biased polling outfit like Rasmussen is finding Obama continuing to increase his lead.

And newspaper endorsements continue to flood in for Obama. Two more fairly conservative big city newspapers, the Chicago Tribune, which never endorsed a Democrat before, and the L.A. Times both followed the Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle into Obama's corner today. The Times editors wrote that they did it "without hesitation," even though, economically, they are extremely right-wing.

Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.

These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade. The U.S. Constitution, more than two centuries old, now offers the world one of its more mature and certainly most stable governments, but our political culture is still struggling to shake off a brash and unseemly adolescence. In George W. Bush, the executive branch turned its back on an adult role in the nation and the world and retreated into self-absorbed unilateralism.

...On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers. But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to "suspend" his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear). Having little to contribute, he instead chose to exploit the crisis.

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

Even right-wing talk show hosts are abandoning McCain's sinking campaign. Most are just wishing it would all be over so they can stop talking about McCain, who they hate anyway, and get about trying to delegitimize Obama's presidency while pumping Sarah Palin for 2012. But Philly's most listened to conservative talker, Michael Smerconish (WPHT) endorsed Obama today-- and he largely based his endorsement on McCain's weakness-- and Obama's strength-- on terrorism and foreign policy.

"I've decided. My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.
 
"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president.

"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it's the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and instead invaded Iraq.

"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

The Wall Street Journal is unlikely to find a way to gracefully bow out of endorsing McCain. They'll have to do it. But in the blatant Republican Party propaganda sheet, Peggy Noonan savaged the embarrassing Palin today. Delusional as ever, Noonan starts off by yammering incoherently about how McCain-- at least in the elite circle she travels in, if not in the real world-- won the debate on Wednesday. Every poll except one at RNC Headquarters proves her wrong. Then she heads off into Palin territory:

Was her choice a success or a disaster? And if one holds negative views, should one say so? For conservatives in general, but certainly for writers, the answer is a variation on Edmund Burke: You owe your readers not your industry only but your judgment, and you betray instead of serve them if you sacrifice it to what may or may not be their opinion.

...[W]e have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite-- a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

...In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives. In one now-famous case, Christopher Buckley was shooed from the great magazine his father invented. In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position.

At any rate, come and get me, copper.

Let's hope they rip each other apart. It won't matter to Palin. She claims she doesn't read any of them. She doesn't want much news seeping into her narrow little mind; it just gets her depressed.

MITT'S NOT THE ONLY REPUBLICAN FLIP FLOPPIN' FOOL-- COLEMAN, SUNUNU & VOINOVICH TURN AROUND ON TREATY

I think when I first heard about opposition to a treaty regulating access to the world's seas there wasn't anyone credible against it at all. When Reagan was preisdent he had endorsed it-- and vowed to live by it's regulations until it had officially passed. The U.S. military wants it. Even Bush is for it. The only opposition is from the "black helicopter crowd," nuts and loons like Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Bolten. And they don't like it primarily because they just hate the UN and the concept of the UN. But these are the kinds of folks who just DO NOT BELIEVE in organized society-- the kinds of people who refuse to fund fire departments but who are rich enough to have their own for themselves.

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note has the whole story today about how kooks like Bolton and Frank Gaffney have gotten to rubber stamp wingnuts John Sununu (R-NH), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and George Voinovich (R-OH) to start making noises about changing their votes to oppose the bill. Right wingers are suspicious because if environmentalists and the UN want it, there must be something they can find to hate in it-- even if two Bushes and a Reagan thought it was in the country's interests to ratify the treaty.

Environmental groups endorse the treaty's protection of global fish stocks, the US navy endorses its assurance of free movement and the oil industry's trade group endorses its promise of a level playing field for companies staking claim to drill in the Arctic.

But Republican antagonists in the Senate, several of whom have derailed the treaty twice in the past, discount even the Bush administration's backing. They yesterday blocked a preliminary ratification vote, and in doing so declared it an auspicious date for foes of international institutions.

"There is no better time to celebrate the 62nd birthday of the United Nations than to say we don't want it," said Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican senator who leads an annual effort to withhold US funds from the UN.

Inhofe... the craziest and most backward member of the U.S. Senate; figures. I called Andrew Rice, the exceptionally bright Oklahoma state senator who is running against him next year. I could see him rolling his eyes over the phone, embarrassed that of all the states in the country it had to be the one he's so proud of to be stuck with a nutcase like Inhofe.

"As a U.S. Senator who constantly portrays himself as a pro-national security public servant, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is now choosing to ignore the pleas of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, among other military leaders, when they ask for Senate approval of UNCLOS.  American military leaders have made it clear that participation in UNCLOS will enhance our national security and that changes have been made in UNCLOS provisions to explicitly protect American interests.  And yet Jim Inhofe and a very small minority are working against our nation's best interests, simply because it might hurt the special interests he puts before the needs of Oklahomans again and again. Inhofe is clearly out of step with our national security needs."

The two most backward of the pathetic pygmies™ running for their party's useless presidential nomination, Huckabee and Thompson, have also weighed in against the treaty-- even if neither has much of a clue what it's about. "Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson have pointedly broken with Mr Bush on the treaty. 'At a time when customary international law in this area has proven sufficient, I believe the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming the United Nations,' Mr Thompson said yesterday," attempting to curry favor with that same old Black Helicopter crowd.

Taylor Marsh and Matt Stoller, neither of whom spend smuch times riding black helicopters, have both written eloquently on this today. If, like me, you feel it's time to celebrate the impending end of the Bush Years but getting rid of detrius like James Inhofe, Andrew Rice's Blue America page is open... 24/7.

WHO FUCKED UP THE WAR? VOINOVICH SAYS IT WAS BUSH-- BUT HE STILL VOTES FOR EVERY SINGLE LAME BUSH SCHEME INVOLVING IRAQ

While Harry Reid has the cots brought into the Senate for a one night demonstration of Republican obstructionism that is likely to go nowhere and while Pelosi still insists that impeachment-- clearly the only way out of Iraq-- is still off the table, and while George Voinovich-- who still hasn't been able to muster the balls Olympia Snowe has in voting against the Bush Iraq agenda of endless war-- warns Rove that Bush's legacy may be in trouble if he doesn't withdraw from Iraq (actually saying Bush "fucked up the war"), Peter Pace sent up a trail balloon today for the Regime saying that they plan on escalating the war even further. Like who didn't see that coming?

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.

Most professional military men already know Bush is a vicious little prick who will turn on them in an instant and blame them for everything that goes wrong-- or end their careers if he thinks they're being disloyal to his Regime's ideological diktats. Dan Froomkin laid it out beautifully in his Washington Post column this morning:

President Bush says that he should be trusted on military issues because he listens to his commanders. But he has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover-- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him.

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

Bush brought in David BetrayUs because he's a right wing Republican hack with his eyes on political office and because Bush knew he is a true believer in the same discredited ideological approach to Iraq that he and the other dead enders are. "When virtually all of Bush military line of command, including the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed his 'surge' proposal late last year, Bush responded not by listening, but by removing the top two commanders responsible for Iraq and replacing them with more amenable leaders, including Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus."

But everything about Iraq is not all doom and gloom. We just got an e-mail from Fred, the DWT correspondent semi-embedded with Halliburton in Baghdad. The Greed Zone is buzzin' this week with news from Halliburton's KBR division that in 10 days new yoga classes for beginners will commence. Photo above courtsey of KBR, Baghdad.

WILL VOINOVICH'S TURN FROM BUSH'S IRAQ POLICIES HELP SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY?

Five years too late for these two dunces

Last November Ohio Senator George Voinovich saw his state political party devastated and swept out of power. After November the all-powerful Ohio Republican Party-- a failed experiment in one-party government which Karl Rove was eager to emulate nationally-- was barely standing. Extremist and reactionary politics combined with uncontrolled corruption left the GOP losing votes in every part of the state, including the reddest heartlands. Ted Strickland beat the Republicans' far right candidate for governor, Ken Blackwell by nearly a million votes. Even more ominous for Voinovich, his close friend and senatorial colleague was beaten by Sherrod Brown, 2,133,705 to 1,681,015 in an election that was supposed to be too close to call. Republican congressional incumbents lost votes-- both in terms of percentages and totals-- from their 2004 races in every single district in the state:

Steve Chabot (R-OH-01) took 60% in 2004 and 53% last year
Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH-02) took 52% in a 2005 special election and 51% last year
Mike Turner (R-OH-03) took 62% in 2004 and 59% last year
Mike Oxley (R-OH-04) retired
Paul Gillmor (R-OH-05) took 67% in 2004 and 57% last year
David Hobson (R-OH-07) took 65% in 2004 and 61% last year
John Boehner (R-OH-08) took 69% in 2004 and 64% last year
Pat Tiberi (R-OH-12) took 62% in 22004 and 58% last year
Steven LaTourette (R-OH-14) took 63% in 2004 and 58% last year
Deborah Pryce (R-OH-15) took 60% in 2004 and 50% last year, coming within around 1,000 votes of losing her seat
Ralph Regula (R-OH-16) took 67% in 2004 and 59% last year
Bob Ney (R-OH-18) couldn't run because he's in prison for taking bribes but his 66% victory in 2004 turned into a 62% victory for Zach Space, a Democrat, last year.

Meanwhile every single Democratic incumbent increased his or her margin of victory.

Now, Voinovich may not be a genius but he isn't a complete idiot either and he certainly sees which way the wind is blowing and knows how to read a poll. So when respected Republican foreign policy maven Richard Lugar came out and blasted the BushCheney Iraq policy train wreck last night, Voinovich was the first to sign on. Almost identical to Lugar's, Voinovich's Iraq voting record can't be described as anything but slavishly rubber stamp. I truly believe that if every citizen in Ohio were to read it, he wouldn't get 40% of the vote.

A day after Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar declared that Bush's "surge" policy of adding troops was not working, Voinovich sent Bush a letter "expressing his belief that our nation must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our gradual military disengagement from Iraq," Voinovich's office announced.

Big Tent Democrat points out, as many non-Beltway Democrats have, that so far it's all talk. He points out that neither Voinovich nor Lugar is ready to insist on a timetable to end the occupation; in fact, neither is ready to insist on anything. And their records-- and the records of other Republican self-proclaimed "moderates" who have tread these paths before (Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, John Sununu, Norm Coleman...) are all talk and almost no action.

What this position stakes out is the view that it is acceptable to SAY you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy without actually doing anything about it. Forget for a moment the policy fact that saying you oppose the President's policy and then voting to fund it will effect no change in policy. Consider the crass politics of the situation. If the Lugar/Voinovich/Smith/Hagel position is treated as politically acceptable, even admirable, Democrats will be creating a political safe harbor for Republicans to avoid having to run on supporting Bush's Iraq Debacle.

Let me be clear, I find it unacceptable policy for Republicans AND Democrats to stake such a position. It will do nothing to end the Iraq Debacle. It is why I condemned such Dem favorites as Webb, Tester and Levin for their position and statements on Reid-Feingold.

But for those who are only concerned about the politics, they too should find the position unacceptable. For it kicks away the Iraq issue against vulnerable GOP moderates in 2008. It also does serious damage to the Democratic Party's relationship with its base. In short, it has no redeeming feature, policy-wise or politically.