How Obama Ate Republicans’ Lunch On START
Lindsey Graham is rapidly becoming the go-to Republican for whiny quotes. He is upset with the productivity of the lame duck session (ignoring that all this was pushed to the lame duck because of Republican obstruction). He said this about the collapse of the unified GOP blockade:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is not happy about the recent productivity of the lame duck Congress, and blamed the GOP for allowing it to happen. “When it’s all going to be said and done,” he said on Fox News Radio today, “Harry Reid has eaten our lunch. This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn’t have passed in the new Congress.”
“I stand here very disappointed in the fact that our lead negotiator on the Republican side … basically is going to have his work product ignored and the treaty jammed through in the lame duck. How as Republicans we justify that I do not know,” Graham said. “To Senator Kyl, I want to apologize to you for the way you’ve been treated by your colleagues.”
Yes, the Senate should apologize to Jon Kyl for ignoring his dishonest actions about what is and isn’t in the START Treaty. Perhaps Senators are listening to every living Secretay of State and military leaders instead?
Slate explains how Republicans picked a fight on START and why they lost.
There were two kinds of opponents in this debate. The first had concerns that President Barack Obama would use the treaty as an excuse to ease up on missile defense and the programs to maintain the nuclear arsenal. In recent weeks, Obama and his team did as much to allay these concerns as any hawk could have hoped—and more than many doves preferred.
AdvertisementSo that left the second kind of opponent: those who simply wanted to deny Obama any kind of victory. The latter motive was clearly dominant in this debate.
To get the treaty ratified, it needed 67 votes in the Senate, so that means 9 Republicans had to vote for it. Republicans kept using the rhetoric they’ve used for almost all the good bills they have been blocking – “ramming it down our throat,” “haven’t had enough time,” “Senate procedure,” etc. to run out the clock. Nevermind that the treaty was signed in April and is all of 17 pages long (plus many, many hearings). The Negotiating team simply went around the self-appointed lead negotiator – what else can you do when he is a dishonest hack?
For reasons that nobody can quite explain, Kyl had managed in the past few years to cut a profile as the “go-to” Republican on all matters nuclear. The conventional wisdom was that if Kyl endorsed the treaty, it would pass; if he didn’t, it wouldn’t.
And so, the White House and the Pentagon sent high-level emissaries to Kyl’s lair during the Senate’s recess to negotiate a deal, offering, among other enticements, an extra $4 billion, on top of the $80 billion already committed over the next decade, to “modernize” the nuclear-weapons infrastructure.
Kyl took the goodies but came out against the treaty anyway. So Obama and his aides did something no legislative powerhouse should ever let happen—they went around him, treating him as just another senator, and they won.
Kyl limps away from this face-off gravely wounded—a leader unable to deliver either on his promises or on his threats.
McConnell also comes out of this looking pretty ineffective. The narrative in the Washington media has already changed to how effective Obama is at passing legislation. I hope this is a preview of the fights to come. I imagine that the so-called moderates were worried about commercials in their home districts about how they valued party over country. Kyl’s problem was that this was good and important legislation and that blocking it would have very bad consequences. There may be more battles like this to come – there will be a lot of high-stakes brinksmanship in the next Congress and we’ll find out whether Republicans are more scared of teabaggers or everyone else.
Tags: Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, START
This puts to rest once and for all the notion that Obama is helpless in the face of Senate opposition. I never understood why some folks – including Obama himself – would offer that chestnut up as an excuse for the failure of other signature legislation. Now the next time we hear it, we can point to the New START fight and demand a better answer, right?
Also notably absent from this win is the supposedly necessary “compromise” that hands Republicans yet another one of their Holy Grails in exchange for the win. Let’s put an end to that canard as well.
A President always holds (nearly) all the cards. McConnell and Kyl were simply blustering all along, but Obama’s passivity gave credibility to their bluster. I’d like to say it’s never too late to start over, but much has been lost and I’m not sure.
i’ve heard rumors that DADT and START were part of the tax bill negotiation, that Obama ‘gave’ 2 year extension to the low rates for millionaires when he received Republican tacit support not only for 53 weeks of unemployment insurance but also for passage of DADT and SMART. For those who were disappointed with the overall tax bill negotiation, would your view be changed if there is truth that Obama also got (negotiated) DADT and SMART as part of the bargain?
Sorry, that would be exactly the wrong lesson. Did you even READ this article? The lesson here is that they were able to bypass the usual obstructionism by appealing to a topic that is normally in their wheelhouse — national security. AND they bought off those votes with a spectacular increase in the so-called weapons modernization program. Basically, they saw Obama as about ready to steal their issue — and don’t be surprised if way more repub Senators vote for this to spare themselves the commercials. Translation — there was genuine leverage here which you can see in detail.
What cassndra_m said. (assuming she’s speaking to anon)
Good point PBaumbach. To think that START, DADT and the tax bill are independent of each other would be naive.
“Up or Down Vote!” “Insider maneuvering!”. “playing politics”. If Obama can get these kinds of things to stick to the Republicans – then more power to him.
I was speaking to anon, sorry.
Paul has an interesting point and I’ve been wondering about possible linkages to DADT and START. Which doesn’t say much for today’s GOP, does it? They would trade tax cuts for their funders, abandonment of any deficit credibility for clean wins for the President.
Shorter Cassandra: “Obama found a way.”
Good for him.
With the combined Senate experience of Biden and Obama, they can find enough pain points, weaknesses, and incentives in the Senate to pass just about anything – if they choose to make it a priority.
And for them to make it a priority, rank and file Democrats (including bloggers) need to hold their feet to the fire, and not cop out by saying “Show me the votes” or *shrug* “What can Obama do? the Senate won’t let him.”
i’ve heard rumors that DADT and START were part of the tax bill negotiation
It’s not a rumor, Obama used that excuse himself to pass the tax cuts for the rich. He cited the Repubs threat not to allow ANY more legislation until their tax cuts were passed.
However, I think the Republican ultimatum was a convenient excuse, if not a pre-arranged cover, for Obama to do what he already planned to do. Remember Boehner’s pre-election capitulation on taxes, which was ignored by Pelosi and Obama.
The START fight shows Obama can find Repub votes and break an ultimatum when he wants to.
I suppose it could come out later what Obama gave up to get the START win. We may find out when departing Administration members start writing their books.
You’re still not getting it anon.
Great, but do you really trust Russia to live up to the treaty ? If Russia is bargaining with us I’m sure they are getting the better of the deal. What in their nature would lead anyone to trust them ?
Mr. 1955 arrives with words of wisdom.
Good point, FBH. Excluding you from the treaty negotiation team was obviously a mistake.
Do you have a real complaint with it, or just a “you can’t trust the Ruskies” fear induced paranoia?
“Do you have a real complaint with it, or just a “you can’t trust the Ruskies” fear induced paranoia? ”
The latter will do just fine thank you .
FBH, Joe McCarthy called…. he wants his delusions back.
The treaty includes on-the-ground inspectors, who had to leave when the last treaty expired. I’m not sure why Republicans believe no inspectors is better.
UI is bringing logic into a paranoia fight. 😉
R’s have problems with inspectors. Remember the ones who told them there were no WMD’s in Iraq?
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward
and trustworthy”
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
that Georgia’s always on my my my mind.
just make sure you credit that quote to someone who is, himself a liar, retard, teabagger, and republican.
Talk about ‘Out to Lunch!’ I specifically used a non-Fox News link so ya’ll liberals wouldn’t cry ‘foul.’
I guess the Obama administration still hasn’t learned how to ‘walk and chew gum at the same time’ yet.