Senator Lugar's Legacy; Political Consequences
May 09, 2012

Senator Lugar's defeat in the Indiana Republican primary will remove from the Senate its leading voice in support of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR). CTR is housed in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). DTRA manages the CTR program. It does so with a highly professional staff seasoned in the issues surrounding the prevention of nuclear war, accidental or purposeful

These alphabet soup  Washington programs and agencies are not household names the way MEDICARE and MEDICAID are but their existence is vital to make sure that countries with nuclear weapons are responsible about getting rid of their nuclear weapons, including nuclear warheads and missile launchers. warheads.

Beyond the important issue of nuclear control and reduction, the Lugar defeat has important political consequences for the Republican Party and its inextricable connection to the Tea Party , a voice of political extremism. The Tea Party, in snake-like fashion, has its arms and legs wrapped around the Senate and House Republican Parties. So far Governor Romney, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, has not separated himself from the Tea Party.

I. Senator Lugar's Legacy

Senator Lugar is a strong conservative who believes in government that is accountable, responsive, efficient and effective. He is a builder, not a destroyer.  As a conservative he believes that a foreign policy must be stable as it reduces risk and prevents chaos. He cares about his country before stoking partisan wars.  As a conservative, he believes in the use of American power and at the same time recognizes the need for restraining that power. Lugar regularly voiced warnings about the adverse consequences of committing U.S. troops to foreign wars. He wanted us to have an exit strategy before we committed ourselves to long troop commitments fighting abroad.

Lugar stood up to special interests. Nobody fought the wasteful subsidies associated with our farm program as hard as he did. As a farmer, he advocated against his own economic interest. We liberals knew that his conservatism was a sharp area of disagreement as he regularly opposed critical domestic safety net programs or important innovations such as the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Lugar though believed in the necessity of government. He was one conservative who recognized that raising the debt ceiling was not a liberal or conservative issue.  When Democratic appointees were competent he supported them as he did Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Lugar consistently gave his constituents his judgment as he vigorously represented their interests.

Responsibility and deliberation is part of what Lugar will be remembered for. That combination is now lacking in too many of our elected officials.

II. Lugar's Initiatives: Part of the Legacy

Senator Lugar, with his ally Senator Nunn (D-Ga), then the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, created a congressional initiative that influenced the direction of our foreign policy as the Soviet Union was falling apart. These Senators had the foresight to create the Cooperative Treat Reduction (CTR) program and house it in the Defense Department. They persuaded their congressional colleagues in the Senate and House to support the legislation which was accomplished two weeks before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Their careful work gained the support of then-President George H. W. Bush, his cabinet and particularly military officials in the Pentagon. At the time, bi-partisanship was still not an endangered idea. Its bi-partisanship and conception made it a significant innovation. Results matter. CTR deactivated hundreds of nuclear weapons. Better yet the legislation led to de-nuclearizing of three states in the former Soviet Union--Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. These states possessed more nuclear weapons than China, France and Great Britain combined.

Lugar and Nunn did not rest on their laurels. They have stayed at it, Lugar as a Senator, and Nunn through Georgia Tech's Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and Nuclear Threat Initiative. They worked on practical ways to stop threats posed by nuclear, chemical and biological materials.

III. Senator Lugar and the New Start Treaty

Lugar was a prompt supporter of the New Start Treaty. He played no games. This is politically important because as the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, he is subject to a Senate Republican caucus vote. That threat of discipline from hard line Republicans, who follow a policy of no cooperation with Democrats, has made other ranking members quake in their boots. Not Lugar on New Start.

What is under appreciated is that the legacy of CTR, and its being housed in the Defense Department, led the way to the military officials understanding the value of New Start. Their solid support for its ratification put senior military officials and Lugar and the Obama Administration in the same place on New Start. That contributed to the support from Senator Alexander (R-TN) which brought further support for New Start.

The changes among Senate Republicans is far-reaching. In the midst of the cold war, a majority of Senate Republicans approved the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Long after the Cold War ended, a majority of Republicans opposed the New Start Treaty in spite of the military's enthusiasm for it. Their principal reason was they were opposed to any achievement for President Obama.

IV. Ugly Politics

The Lugar defeat shows that conservatives are not exempt from the fanatic zealotry of the Tea  Party. Voting for New Start, lifting the debt ceiling, voting to confirm Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are now considered mortal sins that require excommunication.

Obama's praise for Lugar for the work they did together on nuclear non-proliferation, when Obama served in the Senate, was distorted into making it appear that Lugar was an Obama lackey. As an old timer, I recall conservative George Smathers attacking liberal Claude Pepper in the Florida primary by saying over and over again in rural Florida that Pepper's sister was a thespian. Facts and quotes, even if by themselves are truthful, can lead to fear or a lie as it did with Lugar and Obama.

Republicans who win landslide elections as Lugar and Olympia Snowe of Maine did are now threatened in primaries because they do not measure up to ideological purity. Snowe chose to not fight. Senator Hatch (R-Ut) prided himself once on working with Senator Kennedy on anti-smoking legislation and juvenile delinquency issues. He races the other way now, abandoning the Dream Act which Lugar did not do.

The Lugar defeat shows that conservatives who speak softly, and carry a nuanced stick, are an endangered species. Being conservative is no protection against excommunication.

With it the Republican leadership--McConnell, Kyl, Boehner and Cantor-- are paralyzed by the Tea Party. In every respect they are intertwined with the Tea Party. The Republican Congressional leadership, by their silence and weakness, aid and abet political extremism. Governor Romney's silence on extremism makes him one who aids and abets political extremism.

V. The Future

If President Obama is elected to a second term, I hope he finds a way of involving Senator Lugar in his Administration. There is a place for statesmen of Richard Lugar's quality who will give advice without fear or favor.

Others need to take up the mantle on Cooperative Threat Reduction. I hope that Senator Levin (D-Mi), the Armed Services Committee Chairman, and Senator Kerry (D-Mass) the Foreign Relations Chairman, do so. Their task is to engage Republicans who will not be fearful. One such possibility is Senator Alexander (R-TN), who stepped up on New Start, and has been mentored by another statesman, Howard Baker.

That bi-partisan combination will provide a living legacy to Senator Lugar's contributions.

David Cohen,
Washington DC

Reckless US Senators Meddling on Iran
Mar 03, 2012

Senators Graham (R-SC), Lieberman (I-Conn) and Casey (D-Pa) stand for reckless Senate action that has the effect of undermining President Obama's diplomatic efforts and use of economic sanctions to pressure Iran from building nuclear weapons. These Senators' actions run the real risk of giving a signal of encouragement to those Israeli officials aching to strike Iran pre-emptively. If Iran havs nuclear capabilty, it does not lead to Iran building or having a nuclear weapon according to analyses by US Intelligence officials, leading alumni of Mossad (the secret Israeli intelligence service) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nuclear capability has to be distinguished from nuclear weaponization according to all of these analysts.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to the U.S., his prospective meeting with the President, and his speech to the annual AIPAC conference, further fuel the verbal and political cauldron of hot flames that adds to our political tensions and distress. The Graham-Lieberman-Casey group really is playing with fire!

Twenty nine Senators have joined the three authors in co-sponsoring a Sense of the Senate resolution which has been referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. What is instuctive is the Senators who have resisted co-sponsoring in spite of intense political pressure to do so. Senators Levin (D-Mich), Kerry (D-Mass) Feinstein (D-Calif) and Harkin (D-Ia), the respective Chairs of Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Appropriations, have refused to co-sponsor. Ranking Republicans who have refused to co-sponsor include Lugar (R-Ind), Saxby (R-Ga) and Cochran (R-Miss) on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Appropriations committees.  These Democratic and Republican Senators, realizing the stakes involved in the issue, refuse to be pressured to cross the line between constructive action and criticism and irresponsible thrusts into a delicate situation.

The Senate resolution is reckless because it specifically opposes any diplomatic agreement that allows Iran to enrich uranium for civilian peaceful purposes. The resolution would bar Iran from developing  nuclear power as a resource much in the same way as France and other countries already have.

In addition the resolution specifically opposes containment. It presents the classic false choice: doing nothing or engage in a military solution. Containment is an active policy of preventing Iran from weaponizing its nuclear arsenal if and when it has that power. It is the opposite of doing nothing. Preventing Iran from building and posessing nuclear weapons is what drives the President's efforts.

In important quarters voices of sanity have commented in highly critical ways of what the Graham-Lieberman-Casey efforts move us towards. Listen to these sober voices.

1. Mike Rogers (R-Mich), and House Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, says on CNN that military action presents "real problems" to U.S. security interests.

2. Meir Dagan, the retired head of Mossad, says military action "would mean regional war." It would give Iran "the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program."

3. Secretary Panetta goes further and says that Iran "could retaliate against the U.S." by "sinking our ships, striking our military bases' and therby "costing many lives." It would "consume the Middle East in a confrontation and conflict that we would regret."

President Obama was unambiguous on three principal points in his famous Atlantic magazine interview on March 2:

1. A nuclear armed Iran is a security threat to the Middle East and the United States.

2. US policy will not accept nuclear weapons for Iran.

3. Our diplomatic strategy and economic sanctions are working. They must be allowed time to take hold.

Leader Reid (D-Nev) and Majority Whip Durbin (D-Ill) have refused to sponsor the Senate rresolution. Minority Leader McConnell (R-Ky) and Minority Whip Kyl (R-Ariz) have acted as Reid and Durbin. I doubt that the resolution will clear the Foreign Relations Committee. But don't put it past Graham, Lieberman and their allies to attach the resolution to another Senate bill.

If they so moved, these reckless Senators present the Democratic and Republican
leadership with the rare chance to act iin the interests of the nation and together move to table, and thereby defeat, such an effort. That would be statesmanship informed by constructive action.

David Cohen
Washington DC
March 3, 2012

Barney Frank: We Miss You Already
Dec 01, 2011

Barney Frank, we miss you already. For Barney Frank you don't need any formal titles to know who is being referred to. The ultimate in praise from the great American short story writer, Ring Lardner, was to have a character called "an original."  Barney Frank  is an original.

I have known and worked closely with Barney Frank for nearly 50 years on numerous causes. Each was an adventure with a focus on advancing an idea that merited support and initially had little political support. We worked to correct economic injustices, overcome denial of rights, correct abuses, take on politically sacred cows. We praised each other and occasionally I'd get scolded for advancing a "dumb" tactic. That was part of the adventure--and in the adventure I learned to toughen myself and not take it personally.

Barney is unique because he is a multi-letter person in a legislative body that has talented people but not in so many different ways. Barney Frank can write laws, thrives in substance, can learn new matters, knows legislative and parliamentary procedures better than anyone I have worked with (and I have worked with parliamentary stars.).

Barney Frank is a living Ecclesiastes. He knows when to fight,  he knows when to compromise, he knows when to jab verbally, he knows when to make a witty bon mot and when to verbalize a witty paragraph. More than that. Barney can work with people he disagrees with, be impatient with people he agrees with and has no trouble working with people he neither likes nor respects.

That's what makes Barney the complete strategist in getting a result.

Now how many House members have a biography written about them. Yes, there's Tip O'Neill and Phil Burton and Speaker Reed more than a century after he served. Stuart Weisberg's Barney Frank:The Story of America's Only Left Handed Gay Jewish Congressman deals with Barney in Bayonne and Barney facing serious personal challenges. Barney Frank took his reprimand from the House, never acting as a victim, accepting his responsibility and moving on to continuing his many contributions.

Barney Frank welcomed the marketplace and combat of ideas, always with more than a touch of with. His book, Speaking Frankly, (note the wit in his title) deeply anchored in his life long liberalism, also argues vigorously for liberals to get past their orthodoxies and to recognize what America's promise and dreams can be. In that sense the book reflects Barney's passion for politics as part of democracy's vitality and his deep love for America..

Barney's contributions are legion: Dodd-Frank the most significant reform of financial regulation since the New Deal, his immediately exposing what was wrong with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and thereby advancing the rights of the GLBT community in all aspects, his battles for poor people's causes in jobs, income, housing and his focus on the excesses of the military budget. In each of these areas Barney recognized that knowing substance was part of gaining influence and power and so was knowing legislative procedures and norms.

Yes, Barney did not suffer fools but he had the ability to do something some of his critics never understood: an ability to build legislative relationships across ideologies, party and competency. That's the aggregation of influence.

Barney was no Don Quixote but he took on issues that had little chance at the beginning but showed a willingness to attack sacred cows. He fought for campaign finance reform, and public financing as part of elections as a Massachusetts state legislator. In Congress he made life miserable for the dairy interests which bough their unjustified subsidies with campaign contributions at the expense of American consumers. Barney began the effort to peel away those industry entitlements.

Barney's taking on the Pentagon budget stands as an effort of importance and discipline. Barney understands where the hidden sources of waste are and where expenditures that bear no direct relation to any rational security need have to be abandoned. The Pentagon, and regrettably Secretary Panetta, are part and parcel of retaining expenditures that will, if the sequester is undone, come at the expense of human needs. I want Barney Frank in my Congressional corner. If he cannot be there then we want his wisdom, his sense of combat, his strategy, his judgment, his wit and humor to make a difference when he steps down.

We need him and we want him as we wish him the best in the next phase of his public life.

David Cohen,
Washington DC

Getting Past November 23, 2011; Keep the Cuts
Nov 16, 2011

We advocates of a rational nuclear arms and national security policy have to look beyond November 23rd, the deadline for the Supercommittee's report to Congress and the American people. The Pentagon (including Secretary Panetta), Senators McCain (R-Ariz) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and other legislators, are making an all out effort to undo any Pentagon cuts or undo sequestration if the Supercommittee cannot come to an agreement.

The national security budget includes the Pentagon, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and the Intelligence Agencies. It's big and the deficit deal last summer did not exempt national security cuts. It insisted on them because they are necessary and prudent.

National security budgets are no mystery. The bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson Commission, Senator Coburn (R-Okla), who helps anchor down the Republican rightwing, Project on Government Oversight/Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Center for American Progress have each issued studies on national security spending. These represent four reports from ideological unalikes. Yet the reports overlap in many ways. Substantial cuts can be made without any risk to national security.

With compelling evidence in hand, President Obama must be decisive and clear.To counteract the Pentagon/McCain/Graham thrust. Obama must go on the offensive against the irresponsible efforts to keep the status quo with Pentagon spending.

The Republicans will argue that sequestration and/or significant cuts will threaten our national security. Quite the reverse: our security is threatened by following the "automatic pilot" line of the stand patters, the resisters to change. It is the very change that draws support across the ideological spectrum. It is change that strengtens national security and prevents our security from being weakened.

The initiative lies with the President. On policy he should be crystal clear: any legislation that undoes the military cuts or sequestration will be vetoed--no ands, if, buts or complicated conditionality.

On politics the President should point out that the Republican politicians who want to protect the status quo and privlege in the Pentagon, and other favored self-styled national security privleges, are the same people resisting any semblance of sacrifice from millionaires who want to retain their tax privleges and are looking to lower their tax rates from 35% to 28%. The issue begs for clear articulation by the President.

We have to begin now to recognize the engame is after November 23rd, no matter what the Supercommittee does or doesn't do. After November 23rd the President's resolve and leadership will be tested. We have to help him pass the test with flying colors..

David Cohen
Washington, DC

Howard Wolpe: A Good Public Servant Remembered
Oct 28, 2011

Howard Wolpe died at the too young age of 71. Howard Wolpe represented a moderate and conservative Michigan disrict for 14 years in the US House of Representatives as a liberal Democrat.

Howard was an Africa expert who made continuing contributions as a legislator by fighting for economic and political sanctions against South Africa. To do so, he had to overcome the rigid Cold War perspective of the Reagan Administration and persuade enough colleagues to override a Reagan veto. He continued as a legislative initiator by leading the efforts to provide famine relief and development assitance to Africa.

Howard could pay attention to these larger issues because he understood and applied the Tip O'Neill philosophy  that "all politics is local." Maybe not all politics, but a substantial part. So he repeatedly was reelected. Wolpe was so effective politically that the Republican legislature gerrymandered him out of his seat when Michigan lost representation after the 1990 census.

After his Congressional service, Wolpe served as President Clinton's representative to the Africa Great Lakes Region. There he worked overtime, in an uphill effort, to draw US attention, and that of other countries, to conflicts and harm to the people in Burundi, Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.

Wolpe challenged himself to become well informed on areas outside of his specialty such as nuclear non-proliferation, adverse environmental consequences that cause famine and the harm from small arms sales.

Howard Wolpe was so substantively respected, and he had a great ability work with people who were not liberals, that Lee Hamilton, the respected head of the Wilson International Center for Scholars, asked him to head its Africa program. As with all other matters of his public life, Howard Wolpe performed excellently.

Howard faced tragedy as his wife drowned in a surprise undertow. He continued and moved forward. His warm heart was overcome by illness.  Howard Wolpe's contributions as a public servant will stand as a lasting part of his contributions to the public weal and are part of a proud legacy of public service.

David Cohen,
Senior Congressional Fellow,
Council for a Livable World
 

House Vote on McGovern-Jones Amendment, President Needs to Change Afghanistan Policy
May 27, 2011

President Obama, and his national security Cabinet and staff, had better pay attention to the  incredibly close vote on the McGovern (D-Mass)-Jones (R-NC)Amendment. The Amendment to the Defense Department authorization (DOD) bill was a vote about changing our severely flawed Afghanistan policy.

The McGovern-Jones Amendment called for an accelerated withdrawal of military forces from Afghanistan by requiring a fixed timetable to turn military operations over to the Kabul government. The Amendment, co-sponsored by Representatives Amash (R-Mi), Cicilline (D-RI), Lewis (D-Ga), Paul (R-Tx), Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca) and Welch (D-Vt), reflects bi-partisan doubts and dissatisfaction with the President's Afghanistan policy.The Amendment drew total support from liberals and near unanimous support from Democratic moderates. My sources tell me that the Amendment's measurable support from conservatives reportedly surprised the White House and the Defense Department.
Twenty-six Republicans voted for the Amendment. Three Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee approved the Amendment.Only 8 Democrats in toto voted against it.

Given the House's polarized history of recent years this vote represents a major breakthrough. A policy placing fixed timetables is how the House  works to redirect policy when it finds the current policy wanting. Historically the DOD bill is the way to express wider beliefs on major foreign policy questions. That occurred during the Vietnam War and on major arms control questions all through the 1980s. The House Republican leadership also works to exercise Congressional powers but in ways that harm national security. For example one provision in the DOD bill limits the President's authority to cut nuclear weapons that have been deployed or retired from the stockpile.

Past history of DOD bills merits examination.The House calling for a time limited plan to retain troops in Afghanistan is its way to get accustomed to taking on the President and his Team. By voting on these issues in their varied policy stages is how Congress finally asserted its power to legislatively end the Vietnam War. It is also how Congress used its legislative power to limit nuclear testing in the Reagan years-- policies that led to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that is now waiting to have the Senate give its advice and consent to.

The House action should give the Senate encouragement to move off of its muted doubts about the current policy.

Stay tuned.  Other bills, apart from  the DOD authorization, will give Congress an added  vehicle to legislatively challenge our Afghanistan policies.

David Cohen
Senior Congressional Fellow,
Washington, DC
 

Edie Wilkie: A Peace Builder Who Made a Difference
Apr 07, 2011

Edie Wilkie will be missed by all those  who knew her. Edie's sparkle was always part of her.  She contributed her astute judgments to whatever "our crowd" was working on. With Edie our crowd grew in numbers and the combinations she organized were not always conventional.

Edie Wilkie's leadership in the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus contributed to specific changes in policy. Her range was far reaching. Weapon systems issues, military policies in Central America, human rights interventions are all matters that Edie's leadership influenced our community and office holders.

Edie Wilkie was a peace builder because she had the imagination, creativity, skills and judgment to organize Congress members outside of the formal Committee system. That educated Members, led to creating all sorts of networks that otherise would have stayed unorganized. Edie organized them across party lines. They influenced policy on a whole host of issues. Congress institutionally had a greater effect on  directing us away from nuclear recklessness and towards human rights.

Remember Donald Regan, President Reagan's sometime chief of staff, who thought the skills needed for weapons analysis was beyond a woman's ability. That lit Edie Wilkie's fires. Edie did more than analyze policy. She could connect with those who could act on ithe analysis. Those abiliites of hers brought new voices to the table. She did it all with uncommon grace. Her humor  lightened us up from our sometimes dour tendencies. That humor added to our understanding of the stakes involved. lesson learned. Dourness delivers paralysis. Humor gives us perspective and helps us act..

We tennis players all were challenged by her ferocious forehand.We hit wildly or lamely but never in. Edie always hit in. Edie's voice of sanity, reason and laughter leave her luminous qualities with us forever.

New Start Treaty: Senate Advise and Consent Approval, Really Major
Dec 22, 2010

The Senate's action by approving the New Start Treaty by a strong 71-26 vote deserves to be celebrated. Two/thirds of the Senators present and voting is required for approval. With an extra-ordinary majority needed for approval a six vote margin stands as a healthy one.

Our governing institutions can produce welcome results. I want us to  understand why. The outcome is a triumph of the political process over strong resistance and hardcore obstructionism from treaty opponents.

I. Here's What's at Stake:
The treaty re-establishes mutual on the ground verification of American and Russian nuclear arsenals. Without the treaty there is no inspection or verification. In a nutshell, no treaty means trust but do not verify.

By approving the treaty the US stands as a mature nation ready to do its part to create a workable world of nuclear stability that moves to zero nuclear weapons. By safeguarding nuclear material stockpiles and warheads, mutually cooperative efforts with Russia  are strengthened.

II. Obama Administration Prepared by Carefully Laying the Groundwork

The Obama Administration prepared ahead of time by building a skilled State Department team, headed by Rose Gottemoeller as Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance and an active presence by Pentagon officials and armed services officials of high rank. After agreement was reached with Russia the State Department and the military were as one. Within the military there are savvy and caring security experts who value stability and arms control as much as anybody. Secretary Gates, and senior military officials, provided strong and unequivocal support for New Start. Admiral Mullen's pro-treaty letter in the last few days of the debate added to the Armed Services strong and pivotal ratification efforts. Mullen reinforced the Administration's early work  as it responded efficiently and crisply to many legitimate questions that merited careful  and clear answers.

New Start supporters provided clear messaging. The effect was that the argument shifted to the harmful security threats to the US if the treaty was not ratified. That argument became credible because of the solid military support for New Start.

III. Senate Politics

Senators Kerry's (D-Ma) and Lugar's (R-Ind) leadership trumped the polarized politics of Washington. They worked together closely based on mutual respect and a long relationship. Lugar is arguably the most knowlegable Senator on the nuclear arms reduction issue. He worked closely with Senator Nunn when he was in the Senate and since. He also helped educate President Obama on the issue when each served in the Senate. Senator Kerry exercised his leadership by being patient, listening to the concerns of his colleagues, answering legitimate questions that are part of the stuff of give and take in politics. Kerry was a convincer by being a listener to the concerns of his colleagues. Support for the treaty from Democrats was never in doubt or from the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. With one exception on one amendment all Democrats opposed all amendments that were "treaty busters."

For the longest time Lugar was the only Republican announced treaty supporter. But the Administration and Kerry and Lugar were the opposite of passive. They persuaded those who served Republican Presidents to come out in full force to support the Treaty. James Baker and James Schlesinger were especially important. Baker served Reagan and Bush and is seen not as a striped pants man but a hard nosed political operator who understands the substance of the issue. Schlesinger is a hawk who opposed other arms control treaties. Whatever questions they raised about the treaty they were unambiguous that New Start should be approved.

Their arguments created political space that began to sink in. That was critical. Obama did not want to postpone the vote to next year.  McConnell clearly overstepped boundaries when he said he wanted to make sure that Obama would not succeed in 2012. That became a reckless reminder that he believes our national security be damned serving narrow political purposes only.

McConnell's folly became evident when the vote to begin debate of New Start had  unanimous Democratic support plus a sufficient number of Republicans to give the vote a 2/3 majority of those present and voting though only a majority was required. That provided a psychological lift to treaty supporters..

The McConnell and Kyl efforts on the Sunday talk shows opposing ratification ultimately failed. Even so, there was plenty of worry Sunday night. The groundwork that had been laid over many months began to show results. Efforts at back channel contacts with Republican Senators led to showing why New Start helps rather than hurts US security. Gradually enough Senators shifted to support ratification.

So a mixture of substance, credible outside support from former Republican officials, the solidity of the military, Senate politics among Republicans (the overreach on this issue by McConnell and Kyl), overwhelming newspaper support in home states combined to a resounding victory.

IV. Role of Interest Groups

The arms control community was as one. New Start in conventional political terms may not be a salient issue but it is an issue in which elected officials can cast an affirmative vote without political risk. To the Administration's credit they worked more cooperatively and were welcome receivers of lobbying information from the arms control groups as well as producers of it. It was a two way street that led to a functioning two source rule on where Senators leaned and what they were thinking, what concerns they had and how best to meet those concerns. A veteran of work on these issues during other Administrations said that the level of cooperation and respectful relationship building exceeded all other efforts.

The role of Council for a Livable World became visible to me when I was standing off the Senate floor for the Sunday session and as the Senate was voting approval on December 22. Two different staff members came up to John Isaacs to thank him for Council's timely fact sheets, credible bullet points and sharply put arguments in opposition to the Amendments that were roll called. Each of those Amendments gutted the treaty and were therefore "deal breakers" with Russia. On the merits they were unnecessary..

Being a source for information is influence and power when it comes to making decisions that are mostly out of the public eye. Council for a Livable World, and the arms control conmmunity as a whole, achieved that standard.

V. What's Next

Ideological opposition to nuclear arms control remains. The Heritage Foundation put out a bitter statement. Senator McCain was also a bitter ender in the debate and evidenced it further by his reported surliness and physicality on the Senate floor.

Equally important there is a raging historical amnesia among Republican Senators. Let the record show that Republican Presidents negotiated START 1 ( the basis of the current treaty), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the INF Treaty (eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons), the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. So Kyl, McConnell, McCain and others besmirch the record of Republican Presidents.

In the Cold War in 1963 a majority of Senate Republicans supported the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Today 69% opposed ratification of New Start without a Cold War. Expect these opposing Senators, led by Kyl and McCain, to try and weaken the New Start treaty by imposing missile defense policies on the Obama Administration.

Treaty supporters will have to play a vigilant role in protecting the treaty. It's a role that requires public debate and argument. Otherwise progress gained will be threatened. We can kiss progress on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaties, still to be approved, goodbye. We want something very different. The effort in support of New Start paves the way for a world that is nuclear free..

Iran War Hawks
Nov 01, 2010

The stakes in the Sestak-Twomey Pennsylvania Senate race reach well beyond the far reaching differences between the candidates.

In this race the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), led by neo-conservative William Kristol and Gary Bauer head of the Family Research Counci, l-- Bauer is  linked with the religious right-- has attacked Joe Sestak because he is "soft" on Iran's nuclear threat. That is clearly not true but distortion is the lingua franca of the day.

The effort by Kristol and Bauer is two fold: make the supporters of Iran negotiations, even if they support sanctions, appear anti-Israel. The Sestak-Twomey race is their most significant media buy.

They have another purpose. Politically reinforce the neo-conservative ideologues with right wing evangelicals. (Not all evangelicals are right wing. It's important to remember that.)

No matter who wins the Pennsylvania Senate race the alliance can be expected  to  trumpet an ongoing hawkish and reckless policy towards Iran. It is likely to be cloaked in keeping Israel secure. It will be aided and abetted by right wing House members Michelle Bachmann (R-Mn), John Culberson (R-Tx), Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Steve King (R-Ia) who are chomping at the bit.

Their efforts need to be taken seriously. Let's be prepared to oppose and defeat these proponents of a reckless policy towards Iran.

McCain Hopes and Challenges: Stepping Up to New Start
Sep 07, 2010

Recently two astute political columnists have urged Senator John McCain to return to the John McCain of 2000 and his earlier Senate service. David Broder and Mark Shields rightfully respect politicians who lead by putting national and societal interests ahead of parochial ones.

I share their outloook, having worked with McCain on campaign finace reform and ending the efforts of the tobacco industry to have young people addicted to cigarettes. McCain then credibly said Theodore Roosevelt was his leader model. He fought for the FDA having strong and unambiguous regulatory power over the tobacco industry. That alone made him a different Republican.

Now McCain faces another challenge. With his primary over he has no excuses. The time for those who want to exhort him to meet his responsibilities (Broder) or cut him slack (Shields) is over. The Republican Party has a national security conflict of monumental proportions. Those Republicans who have had responsibility for governing-- James Baker, James Schlesinger, Brent Scowcroft all come to mind-- support New Start.
The Cheney wing of the party have placed ideology over solid national interest. Senators Imhofe (R-Okla) and DeMint (R-SC) are its spear carriers.  They oppose New Start.

Everyone knows McCain is no wimp on national security. McCain has the responsibility of standing with those who can analyze the complexities of a treaty (Baker, Schlesinger and Scowcroft) versus those who place doctrinal faith over credible analysis (Imhofe and DeMint)

McCain can provide the leadership, if he chooses to, by moving his Senate Republican colleagues in the direction of responsible Republican national security and diplomatic experience. The undecided Republican Senators need to advise and consent to the New Start treaty.

Short of acting to support New Start quickly, McCain will stay with the McCain of his primary campaign-- a political leader who no longer has analytic and independent judgment or courage to oppose the "shouters" in his party. To stand on the sidelines, or line up with Imhofe and DeMint, will forever mark McCain as a failed leader.