The 2010 Worth Remembering 1JAN11

VICTORIES from 2010 to celebrate, motivation to keep on keeping on in 2011.....
Some victories of the past year.
Cross-posted from the “Arguing the World” blog at Dissent magazine.
It is a tragic fact: progressives are notoriously bad at celebrating their victories. Tragic, because when it comes to motivating people to take action, keeping evidence that collective organizing efforts can produce real changes–some small, some groundbreaking–is far more important than producing lists of new outrages and fresh causes for alarm.
Even in times of setbacks and difficulties, there are signs of progress worth remembering. And this year was no exception. The Obama administration would like us to enshrine 2010 as the year it passed a landmark law overhauling health care in the United States. However, there were enough compromises in the health care deal and enough issues left unresolved that, as one friend of mine nicely put it, it’s probably better to consider that as not so much a victory as a work in progress.
Yet the year offered some more outright progressive wins. Two came quickly to mind for me. The first was an obvious choice since it was in the news in late December: the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This affirmation of basic civil rights for gays and lesbians in the military was, of course, long overdue. But that in no way diminishes the victory.
The DADT repeal was one within a package of bills passed in quick succession during the lame duck session of Congress. Other fine components included a new START treaty controlling nuclear weapons and a 9/11 first responders bill, itself long overdue.
Also making the DADT win a little bit sweeter was this video. In it, a reporter for a conservative news network tries to pin Representative Barney Frank with a gotcha question based on the homophobic conservative talking point that, with DADT gone, “straight troops will now have to shower with gays.” (The horror!) Quick-witted and articulate as always, Frank succeeds in making an absolute fool of the guy. It is a pleasure to watch.
The second bit of progress that I thought of right away was the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Before being freed in November, the Nobel Peace Prize winner had spent the last seven years–and fifteen of the last twenty-one years–under house arrest, imposed by her country’s military junta. If there are any who deserve the label of democratic hero in the world today, Suu Kyi is among them. This year, for the first time in a decade, she was able to travel out of the country to reunite with her youngest son.
Such reunions were the subject of Amnesty International’s genuinely touching holiday e-card, which featured a video celebrating the return of several prominent human rights defenders to their families. It starts with Suu Kyi but includes others released in recent years after international advocacy campaigns, such as Sakit Zahidov, an opposition journalist, poet, and satirist in Azerbaijan. The stories and images pretty quickly punctured my cynicism.
Also good for keeping cynicism in check was the feedback I received when I asked friends and readers to send their picks for top progressive victories of 2010. The responses I got back were many and varied–and that ended up being quite heartwarming.
Highlights included the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights, a precedent-setting measure passed in New York State that extends vital labor rights to more than 200,000 nannies and housekeepers.
In a similar vein, Danny Postel over at Interfaith Worker Justice mentioned victories in the fight against wage theft (the disturbingly common failure of business owners to pay money owed to day laborers and other low-wage workers) in New York State and in South Florida. Bolstered by these advances, the campaign to enact protections against wage theft at a national level continues.
Other scrappy and perseverant campaigners who had a good year were the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Prometheus Radio Project. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel writes:

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) enjoyed a remarkable 2010, successfully obtaining penny per pound pay raises and code of conduct agreements for farmworkers from the three largest food service companies and the growers who had blocked checks buyers cut directly to the workers so that millions of dollars languished in escrow. These agreements stand to increase workers’ annual earnings from about $10,000 to as much as $17,000. The State Department also recognized Laura Germino, CIW’s antislavery campaign coordinator, as an “anti-Trafficking Hero” for her work helping the US Department of Justice prosecute seven slavery operations in Florida over the last fifteen years, resulting in the liberation of over 1,000 farmworkers.

As for the Prometheus Radio Project (based in my newly adopted home of West Philadelphia), the advocates for grassroots, democratically controlled, low-power radio won a national victory with the passage of the Local Community Radio Act. As the organization noted over the popping of champagne corks,

In response to overwhelming grassroots pressure, Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) a mandate to license thousands, of new community stations nationwide. This bill marks the first major legislative success for the growing movement for a more democratic media system in the United States….The bill repeals earlier legislation which had been backed by big broadcasters, including the National Association of Broadcasters.

Not all went wrong on the electoral front, either. California bucked national trends in a big way, with voters rejecting right-wing candidates and thwarting a business-backed ballot proposition to block regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is far more aggressive than anything on offer at the national level. Time’s Ecocentric blog commented, “With a $1.7 trillion gross state product, California alone is the world’s eighth-largest economy, so even if it is acting alone while the rest of the country drags its feet on climate change, the state has a real chance to make a difference.”
And, speaking of large economies, the left-leaning Dilma Rousseff of the Brazilian Workers’ Party beat Jose Serra in elections this fall, a reflection of the region’s continued dissatisfaction with the legacy of neoliberal economic policy.
Reviewing this list put me in a pretty good mood. No doubt, there are things I would change about 2010 if I could. But these I’d keep.

Mark Engler is a freelance journalist, senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy. An archive of his work is available at www.DemocracyUprising.com.

Senate ratifies new U.S.-Russia nuclear weapons treaty 22DEZ10

VICTORY!!!! 
By Mary Beth Sheridan and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 22, 2010; 3:37 PM


The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved a new nuclear arms-reduction treaty with Russia, the broadest such pact between the former Cold War foes in nearly two decades.
The Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, by a vote of 71 to 26, easily clearing the threshold of two-thirds of senators present as required by the Constitution for treaty ratification.
The final vote came after Senate Democrats accepted two amendments designed to placate Republicans who had qualms about the treaty. The amendments, which passed on voice votes with bipartisan support, emphasized the administration's commitment to a limited missile-defense program and to continued funding to modernize the aging U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
The amendments were to the resolution of ratification accompanying the treaty, a nonbinding statement that codifies the Senate's understanding of the pact but does not directly affect its language. Republican efforts to alter the treaty language were defeated, with supporters of the pact arguing that such changes would have forced new negotiations with Moscow and effectively killed the treaty.
Thirteen Republicans joined all of the Senate's Democrats in voting for ratification, helping to exceed the 67 votes required. Three senators - all Republicans - were not present.
In a floor speech shortly before the ratification vote, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman who shepherded the treaty through the Senate, implored senators to put politics aside and take a broad view. "This is one of those rare times in the United States Senate . . . when we have it in our power to safeguard or endanger human life on this planet," he said. "More than any other, this issue should transcend politics. . . . More than at almost any other time, the people of the world are watching us because they rely on our leadership."
Kerry also chided Republicans who had argued against taking up New START ratification so close to Christmas, thus delaying their departures for the holidays. "The question is not whether we get out of here for a holiday; the question is whether we move the world a little more out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare," he said.
Kerry said after the vote: "The winners are not defined by party or ideology. The winners are the American people, who are safer with fewer Russian missiles aimed at them." He said the treaty's impact "will echo around the world," showing that the United States remains determined to work with Russia and other countries to reduce the global threat from nuclear weapons.
"With this treaty, we send a message to Iran and North Korea that the international community remains united to restrain the nuclear ambitions of countries that operate outside the law," Kerry said.
New START cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday, advancing to a final vote with a margin that appeared to guarantee ratification and a major foreign-policy victory for President Obama. Senators voted 67 to 28 to invoke "cloture" to limit further debate and move to the ratification vote, with 11 Republicans joining all 56 Democrats present in the chamber.
The stakes were high: Defeat of the pact would have severely damaged Obama's global standing, hampering his ability to negotiate other treaties, and would have dealt a major setback to the president's "reset" of relations with Russia.
"It's one of those things in life where failing to get it would be more important than actually what you get with it," said George Perkovich, a scholar on nuclear nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Perkovich noted that Washington's NATO allies had strongly supported the pact. "We would really lose credibility" if it failed, he said Tuesday.
The treaty, if also ratified by Russia as expected, would replace the pact that was credited with ensuring stability between the countries that maintain 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. Since the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I ended last year, the atomic giants have had no inspections of their strategic nuclear arsenals, a gap that worries the U.S. military.
The pact does not represent a dramatic step forward in disarmament, but it will reduce deployed, long-range nuclear warheads by up to 30 percent on each side. Republicans voiced concern that the treaty could be interpreted to limit development of a U.S. missile shield and had worked to extract additional commitments from the administration to fund the modernization of the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Although the treaty easily reached the two-thirds threshold for Senate ratification, the vote marked the tightest margin to date for a nuclear arms-control pact with Russia. The top two Republican leaders in the Senate opposed passage of New START, demonstrating the difficulty for Obama to move further on his sweeping goal of a world without nuclear weapons. His embrace of that idea helped him win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Kerry had predicted Tuesday that the treaty would pick up at least three more votes on ratification, noting that three supporters were absent Tuesday - Democrats Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Republican Judd Gregg (N.H.).
Wyden, who is recovering from prostate cancer surgery, showed up Wednesday and voted for ratification, as did Bayh and Gregg.
In a reference to the partisan wrangling that has erupted over the treaty, Kerry told reporters Tuesday: "I would say to you that in today's Washington, in today's Senate, 70 votes is yesterday's 95," the sort of support enjoyed by earlier arms-control efforts.
In a week of debate on New START, Republican critics expressed concern about several substantive issues. One was missile defense: Although the pact does not legally bar the U.S. government from proceeding with its plans for a missile shield, Republicans worried that a few brief mentions of missile defense in the pact could provide Russia with a political pretext to pressure Washington. The administration said it will not be constrained.
Some senators also said they were not happy with the verification procedures in the treaty.
But in the background was a power struggle: Republicans tried to push the vote into next year, when they will have six more senators and could extract more concessions from Obama.
In the weeks leading to the vote, Obama had committed to spend an extra $14 billion to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex over the next decade, the result of tough negotiations with Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the second-ranking Republican in the Senate. Kyl voted Tuesday against ending debate and voted no again Wednesday on ratification.
"From a Republican point of view, it's not about aborting START. It's about getting the best deal possible, and I just don't understand why we can't wait five more weeks," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
But the White House clearly feared it could face continual delays if the treaty returned to committee.
Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to the Senate for Tuesday's vote, huddling outside the chamber with Democratic leaders to strategize and talking to other senators.
They, and Obama, had conducted an intensive lobbying effort in recent weeks after the treaty's passage became imperiled.
The 11 Republican senators who voted in favor of moving ahead with the treaty Tuesday were Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).
All also voted in favor of ratification Wednesday, as did Gregg. In addition, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) voted for the treaty, pushing the total yes votes to 71.
Three Republican senators were not present for Wednesday's vote: Sens. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Jim Bunning (Ky.). All were believed to oppose the treaty.
New START sets a cap of 1,550 deployed, long-range nuclear warheads for each side. It trims the number of deployed nuclear-capable submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to 700, with an additional 100 in reserve.
Pentagon officials said failure to ratify the pact would force the military to plan for worst-case scenarios, devoting more money and satellite coverage to Russia at a time when resources are stretched because of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama has portrayed the pact as enhancing U.S. leadership globally in pressing countries not to acquire the bomb. In particular, U.S. diplomats say, it will show that Washington is complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact that bars countries from developing nuclear weapons. In exchange, the original nuclear powers promised to gradually disarm.
Obama has made it a priority to strengthen the pact, which has been under strain.
Staff writer Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.

Senators Kyl and DeMint Exploit Faith (Christmas) for Political Means from SOJO 16DEZ10

CHURCH leaders from across the religious spectrum of Christianity condemn the comments of Senators jon kyle r AZ and jim demint r SC on START and Christmas as sacrilegious and disrespectful to American troops who are away from home, facing danger and death this Christmas. Too bad kyl and demint are too self-righteous to be ashamed of their hypocritical rants. From SOJO...
While American troops will be working through the Christmas holidays, putting their lives on the line for our safety, and while millions of Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) brazenly choose to distort and manipulate this most holy of days for their own political means.
Kyl and Demint, after being the driving forces in delaying a vote to pass the New START Treaty, now say it would be “disrespect[ful]” to vote on New START during Christmas, believing, instead, they should be home. I wonder what our troops, who will be working during Christmas, think of their need for a vacation?
And, they call it “sacrilegious” to vote during Christmas on New START. Hmm, is voting on a treaty that promotes peace during the holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace sacrilegious?
These latest tactics are, at best, sad. At worst, they are sacrilegious in their distortions of Christianity and disrespectful to our hard working and committed troops.
In fact, prominent Christian leaders have something to say about it. Here is what they told me when I asked them what they thought about Kyl and DeMint’s statements:

“I can think of no more appropriate time of year for the Senate to pass a treaty that promotes peace and good will. Surely that is the kind of gift that is worthy to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. For two senators who have steadfastly opposed this on political grounds to now use Christmas to justify their position is a cynical manipulation of religion in the worst possible way. It is this manipulation of the Christmas season that is truly sacrilegious.”
– Rev. Jim Wallis, CEO of Sojourners

“Senator Kyl’s and DeMint’s statements suggesting Christmas is a reason to delay action on a treaty aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war is a misuse of the Christian holiday. If anything, this time of year should be an encouragement for our leaders to work harder for peace on earth in response to God who wills peace for all. Peace is a major theme of the Advent season and celebration of Christmas. The National Council of Churches looks forward to being able to celebrate ratification of this treaty to reduce nuclear stockpiles and improve verification. Any delay would be contrary to our commitment to peace on earth.”
– Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA

“In the season when ‘peace on earth …’ was declared at the coming of the Prince of Peace, there is no better time to ratify the New START Treaty that will make peace and our national security more certain.”
– Rev. Dr. Joel C. Hunter, evangelical mega church pastor

“The American Catholic bishops have called on the Senate to ratify the New START agreement. To do so now, in this season that for many marks the birth of the Prince of Peace, would be especially poignant. Senators Kyl and DeMint insist that working on New START over the holidays would dishonor people of faith. That’s transparent. Working men and women are at their jobs in this holy season — before Christmas, after Christmas, and for some even on Christmas Day. I’m convinced the Christ child especially blesses those first responders, military personnel, health care providers, and other emergency workers who spend his birthday in service to others. Senators, truly honor Christians. Stay at your desks until this work to which you have been called is resolved.”
– Stephen Schneck, Director, Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, The Catholic University of America

“Passing the New START treaty has profound moral implications for human life. As Christians, we believe that Christmas celebrates the birth of the Prince of Peace. There is no better way to honor this central moment of our faith than to pass this agreement. Any claim that the treaty has not been vetted is simple political gamesmanship. Now is the season to step back from partisanship and act together for security and peace. It is in keeping with our effort to embody the message of Jesus in this holy season, and it is good for our nation and the world.”
– Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK

“Christians can disagree in good faith on the best way to apply our faith in the public arena, but the statements by Senator Kyl and DeMint are the worst examples of faith in politics. They have been working to kill START for weeks. A concern for the faithful isn’t driving their arguments or they would have mentioned faith earlier, and Senator DeMint wouldn’t be working to push the debate until Christmas. This is cynical partisan politics masquerading as piety, and our leaders should be above that.”
– Eric Sapp, Executive Director, American Values Network

“The attempt by New START opponents to use Christmas for tactical political advantage is profoundly offensive for three reasons. First, this move represents the worst mix of religion and politics. As one who ministers among a rising generation of Christians, I see countless peers walking away from their Evangelical faith because political tactics just like this have sullied the name of Christianity. Our belief motivates us to bring a moral witness to the democratic process — but the cold-blooded use of religion as a political weapon dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ and harms the evangelistic integrity of his church.

Second, the claims made by Treaty opponents are patently unbiblical. The teaching of the New Testament, from Jesus Christ (cf. Mark 2:27) to Paul (cf. Rom 14.5-6), makes clear that the work of righteousness, justice, and compassion should never be preempted by a legalistic appeal to holidays. And, it would be all the more abhorrent if the Prince of Peace’s birth were used to stop a measure to reduce nuclear weapons. Third, those of us who stand within the just war tradition believe that military service should be exercised as a vocation of peacemaking. The American servicemen and-women deployed abroad will not spend Christmas with their families, nor will they take the day off. Though we wish that all Christians could be with their loved ones this holiday, it should not be too much to ask that Congress not abdicate their duty while so many stand in harm’s way. I hope and pray that all American Christians, especially pastors, will publicly reject any attempt to use our faith for tactical political gain.”
– Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, Founder of Two Futures Project, Chairman of Global Task Force on Nuclear Weapons for World Evangelical Alliance

Last Chance: Senate must finish START 16DEZ10

THE START treaty needs to be ratified by the Senate, join TruMajority/USAction in calling on your Senators to vote for the treaty before the Christmas break by clicking the link below.

Make the world safe from nuclear weapons. Tell Congress to sign the START Treaty now.

Members of Congress are booking their plane tickets home this Friday. They might cancel a last minute meeting or cut out of a conference call at the eleventh hour. But there is one task we won't let them put off: making our world safe from nuclear weapons.

The START treaty could be coming to the floor in the Senate as soon as today. This is our chance to begin the process of shrinking our nuclear stockpiles and working with the Russians for a safer future for all.

Tell your Senators to make sure this treaty comes to a vote before they leave for the holidays and tell them to vote "YES."

http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=151

Who's in favor of passing Obama's START treaty? Virtually all U.S. diplomats, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Charimen of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, former Secretaries of State Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell as well as more than 75% of the American public^[1]. Sheesh, even Senator John McCain supports it! ^[2]

But that's not enough for a handful of Republicans who have threatened to keep the bill from coming to the floor, further putting off our safety and goal for a nuclear-free world.

That's why we need you. Demand of your Senator to not only make sure the START Treaty comes to a vote before the holiday break, but that they vote "YES" on it as well.

http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=151

Thanks for all you do.

Darcy Scott Martin
TrueMajority//USAction.org

[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/cnn-poll-three-quarters-say-ratify-start-treaty/
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646730061039638.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

---

---

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for TrueMajority.

Entire Senate Republican Caucus Commits To Filibustering Anything Prior To Budget, Tax Cuts 1DEZ10

SO much for working together for the good of the nation, eh gop and tea-baggers?
This story has been updated
WASHINGTON -- The entire Republican Senate caucus has signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, informing him that they will filibuster any legislative measure that comes before the Senate prior to the body considering a budget or tax cut legislation
The Associated Press first reported the letter last night. But on Wednesday morning Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office passed a copy on to reporters, showing that he had secured signatures from every Senate Republican.
"[W]e write to inform you that we 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 American taxpayers," the letter reads. "With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike."
The maneuver comes, notably, just hours after congressional leadership met with President Barack Obama in an effort to chart out how to work in a bipartisan fashion. It also dropped on the same day that a bipartisan group of lawmakers was set to meet with the Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Office of Management and Budget to discuss a resolution to the tax cut debate. Pointing to the latter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the floor on Wednesday to condemn, what he called, a "cynical" tactic to delay legislative progress.
"My Republican colleagues knew [about the tax cuts meeting] as they drafted this letter," Reid said. "Therefore, they also know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the Senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. With this letter they have simply put in writing the political strategy the Republicans have pursued this entire congress: Mainly, obstruct and delay, obstruct delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of the American people. Very cynical but very obvious and very transparent."
Democrats have been planning to deal with immigration reform and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation during the lame duck session. A continuing resolution for the budget was on the docket, as was one for tax cuts. But there was no sense about prioritizing those two before the former measures.

Story continues below

How Reid and the White House respond to the letter could give observers a fairly strong sense, not only about how the lame duck session will play out, but also how bipartisanship will be defined in the closing years of Obama's first term in office.
FULL LETTER:

priority letters
UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that the START treaty -- a nuclear arms pact with Russia -- will no be affected by the new GOP pledge. And Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), the main Republican Senator behind START, tells Amanda Terkel of the Huffington Post that the treaty is not endangered.
"We're still pushing for the START Treaty to move forward. We're hoping to do that the week of the 13th," Helmke said. "We don't need to have the House in session for the treaty. ... This is assuming we're going to get these things [budget, tax issues] done in the next two weeks, then we take up START in the third week."

FURTHER UPDATE: McConnell took the floor shortly after Reid delivering the following remarks:

With just a few weeks to go before the end of the session, Democrats continue to place their own priorities over the priorities of the American people. These are the things Democrats have chosen to do instead of preventing a massive tax hike that economists tell us would stifle the economy. Republicans have pleaded with Democrats to put aside their wish-list -- to focus on the things Americans want us to focus on. They've ignored us. The voters repudiated their agenda at the polls. They've ignored them. Time is running out. They're ignoring that.

UPDATED 10:15 AM: HuffPost's Howard Fineman reports:
"Senator Reid keeps stalling and we're looking at another week of dealing with issues that aren't the central ones," said one top GOP aide. "He's had months and months to deal with this other stuff."
The surprisingly easy passage of the Food Safety Bill -- hailed as a hopeful sign of bipartisanship -- made the GOP leadership all the more determined to take control of the timetable.
The unified pledge also helps GOP leader Mitch McConnell keep control of Republicans willing to work on side deals -- among them Sen. John McCain, who has expressed optimism about passage of the New START treaty.

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’ from THINKPROGRESS 27NOV10

REALIZATION of the monster they have created is finally sinking in with some in the gop.....and their fear of not being able to control the tea-baggers and their corporate masters will be the gop's undoing unless they completely renounce and reject their irrational "platform" for the nation....from ThinkProgress..
In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.
Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”
Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

Danforth’s fears are not unfounded. Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. “If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge,” noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar “will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it’s doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must.”
Indeed, asked about a potential tea party challenge motivated by his breaks with the GOP on START and other issues, Lugar suggested the party has drifted to the right while he has stayed steady, saying, “These are just areas where I’ve had stances for a long time.”

U.S., Russia agree to nuclear arms control treaty 26MAR10

Swords to plowshares every chance we get!

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 27, 2010; A02

President Obama announced a major new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty Friday, gaining a critical victory as U.S. diplomats head into an intense period of international meetings aimed at keeping the devastating weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists.

Just days after the new pact is signed April 8, Obama will host perhaps the biggest summit ever in Washington, to urge countries to lock down loose nuclear material. A few weeks later, the U.S. government will try to strengthen the world's bedrock agreement limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.

But if the president has gained momentum on pushing his nuclear agenda globally, he still may face a fight getting the 10-year Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, through the Senate this year. The deal with Russia will need Republican backing to get the 67 votes required for ratification.

Arms-control experts said the main virtue of the new pact was that it would allow the two countries that own nearly 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons to continue verifying each other's stockpiles. But as details emerged Friday, it appeared the new treaty might make lower-than-advertised changes in each country's arsenals. While U.S. officials touted a 30 percent lowering of the ceiling for warheads and bombs deployed for long-range missiles, arms-control experts warned that the new pact used different counting rules than previous ones.

The new limit of 1,550 deployed warheads could represent an actual decline of only about 100 or 200 weapons -- a reduction of only as much as 13 percent -- from the comparable figure under the previous treaty, said Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

A White House official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, cautioned that the exact reductions had not been determined.

Each side will also reduce to 700 the number of deployed missiles and bombers that can launch nuclear weapons. That represents a reduction of about 100 to 200 from current U.S. levels, according to estimates by experts.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) acknowledged Friday that Senate consideration will take place in a strained legislative environment but pleaded with his colleagues to set their broader political agendas aside.

"I know there has been a partisan breakdown in recent years, but we can renew the Senate's bipartisan tradition on arms control and approve ratification of this treaty in 2010," said Kerry, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The committee's top Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), a prominent moderate, called for quick ratification.

Several Republicans who have expressed concern about the treaty said they would wait to see it before issuing judgment. One senior Republican source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the key to approving the agreement would be the strength of its verification procedures.

Negotiations on START had bogged down in recent months, raising fears among arms-control activists that the president would be dealt a setback as U.S. diplomats went into critical global meetings on nonproliferation.

Negotiators said they ran into impasses over Russia's demands for less intrusive verification rules and its unwillingness to share the same amount of telemetry data on its missile tests, according to people familiar with the talks. In addition, the two sides clashed over U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe. Washington says that system is aimed at Iran, but the Russians view it as a threat on their borders.

A phone call between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Dec. 4, the day before the old treaty expired, failed to produce momentum toward an agreement that U.S. officials had hinted might be coming.

"There were some concerns among the Russian Defense Ministry that things might not have been going the way they wanted," said one person familiar with the December discussions. "Medvedev heard the concerns of his top defense folks and realized more work needed to be done."

On the American side, negotiators were aware that any significant limits on verification or the U.S. missile shield would be unacceptable to Senate Republicans and the Pentagon. The U.S. side appears to have largely won the battle over missile defense, with a mention of it in the treaty's preamble but no new limits imposed on the American system, officials said.

American officials said Obama and Medvedev talked 10 times on the phone and five times in person throughout the past year, often at times when the negotiations in Geneva had bogged down.

The White House official said the turning point came in a testy conversation between Obama and Medvedev in late February.

"The Russians were pushing for constraints on missile defense to be incorporated into the treaty. The president said that was simply unacceptable," the official said.

Obama indicated he was willing to walk away from the treaty, the official said. "That was the breaking point."

The Russians backed off, and Obama dispatched Ellen Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for arms control, to Geneva with longtime State Department arms-control expert James Timbie. Tauscher helped spark the final push toward agreement.

"It was like a light switch," one senior administration official said.

Tauscher, a former Wall Street investment banker, said in an interview: "The test for me isn't the deal you're doing. It's whether you want to do another deal. And we have people who want to do another deal -- on both sides."

However, analysts say any new negotiations seeking deeper cuts will probably be far more difficult, with disputes over such thorny issues as missile defense, Russia's advantage in short-range nuclear weapons, and the superiority of U.S. conventional forces.

As a result, said Pavel Podvig, a scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, the new treaty signed in April could be the last to emerge from Cold War-style negotiations, with each side seeking to balance its forces against the other's.

Alexander Konovalov, president of the Moscow-based Institute for Strategic Assessments, said any further nuclear cuts would face resistance in the Russian military, which believes Moscow needs a strong nuclear arsenal to compensate for the weakness of its conventional forces.

"It's simply fear," he said. "The military world is very conservative, and it is difficult to change their way of thinking."

Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington and correspondent Philip P. Pan in Moscow contributed to this report.