Obama's outreach to Republicans

[Brittain33]

Recently, we've been hearing a lot about how different things would have been if Obama had only been willing to talk to Senate Republicans--that Grassley, Snowe, etc. were eager to sign on to bipartisan legislation like healthcare reform but the Dems never gave them the opportunity. Dems countered by citing the many meetings that Obama held with individual senators and the long negotiations in Baucus's group last summer, but we still seem to be at an impasse about whether Obama boxed out Republicans or not.

This article on the START treaty, which now appears dead, explains the dynamic. John Kyl recently announced he can't support the treaty, which needs 67 votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/world/europe/17start.html?_r=1&hp

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some people may cite Kyl's refusal as proof that Obama didn't reach out to him sufficiently, but I think the lesson here is that for Republicans, there is simply no interest in saying "yes" to anything which could be perceived in any way as a victory for Obama, and no downside to pretending to negotiate in good faith only to say no at the very end. The Republicans have identified an effective electoral strategy and their decision was ratified by the results this month. Lost is any discussion about the merits of the treaty.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Some people may cite Kyl's refusal as proof that Obama didn't reach out to him sufficiently, but I think the lesson here is that for Republicans, there is simply no interest in saying "yes" to anything which could be perceived in any way as a victory for Obama, and no downside to pretending to negotiate in good faith only to say no at the very end. The Republicans have identified an effective electoral strategy and their decision was ratified by the results this month. Lost is any discussion about the merits of the treaty.

no, the GOP simply disagree with a new START treaty with Russia

[Brittain33]

no, the GOP simply disagree with a new START treaty with Russia

The only reason they have for disagreement is electoral advantage. The full weight of the military brass and foreign policy corps support the treaty, they call it a no-brainer. Kyl raised objections, they were met. At that point it is fair to judge their rationale for saying no. Being in U.S. government means you have a responsibility to do more than "simply disagree" when you have the overwhelming weight of evidence against you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, the GOP simply disagree with a new START treaty with Russia

The only reason they have for disagreement is electoral advantage. The full weight of the military brass and foreign policy corps support the treaty, they call it a no-brainer. Kyl raised objections, they were met. At that point it is fair to judge their rationale for saying no. Being in U.S. government means you have a responsibility to do more than "simply disagree" when you have the overwhelming weight of evidence against you.

as if prior to Obama taking office, the jmfcst's of the GOP were for reducing America's nuclear stockpile.

if you haven't figured it out by now, most GOPers believe nukes have kept the planet from fighting WWIII for the last 65 years.   and most believe the current level of US nukes is too small in number and too outdated.

[Brittain33]

as if prior to Obama taking office, the jmfcst's of the GOP were for reducing America's nuclear stockpile.

if you haven't figured it out by now, most GOPers believe nukes kept the planet from fighting WWIII for the last 65 years.   and most believe the current level of US nukes is too small and too outdated.

I'm curious why they feel they know more than the military figures and foreign policy staff whose job it is to protect America and evaluate how many thousands of warheads are too much, and how much benefit can be gained from getting our main rival to reduce their stockpiles and submit to inspections. Why do you think they all disagree with laymen who have a general sense of "more is better, USA is stronger" and don't look at the mutual aspects of the treaty?

[WillK]

no, the GOP simply disagree with a new START treaty with Russia

The only reason they have for disagreement is electoral advantage...

I think you are missing his point.  The reason to disagree is ideological.  They never intended to back the treaty no matter what concessions were given.  Playing along was done for advantage.  Look at the great commitments they got out of Obama without having to give on anything.  

[Brittain33]

I think you are missing his point.  The reason to disagree is ideological.  They never intended to back the treaty no matter what concessions were given.  Playing along was done for advantage.  Look at the great commitments they got out of Obama without having to give on anything.  

Are those commitments still going to happen if the treaty fails? I missed that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

as if prior to Obama taking office, the jmfcst's of the GOP were for reducing America's nuclear stockpile.

if you haven't figured it out by now, most GOPers believe nukes kept the planet from fighting WWIII for the last 65 years.   and most believe the current level of US nukes is too small and too outdated.

I'm curious why they feel they know more than the military figures and foreign policy staff whose job it is to protect America and evaluate how many thousands of warheads are too much, and how much benefit can be gained from getting our main rival to reduce their stockpiles and submit to inspections. Why do you think they all disagree with laymen who have a general sense of "more is better, USA is stronger" and don't look at the mutual aspects of the treaty?

well, it is true that 10k weapons is no more a deterrent than 5k weapons, or even a single Wesson, if we have a naive POTUS.  But with a strong POTUS, a modernized 10k level is more of a deterrent than an aged force of 5k.

and most of the current crop of "military figures and foreign policy staff" are buffoons, with Gates being the lead buffoon.

[WillK]

I think you are missing his point.  The reason to disagree is ideological.  They never intended to back the treaty no matter what concessions were given.  Playing along was done for advantage.  Look at the great commitments they got out of Obama without having to give on anything.  

Are those commitments still going to happen if the treaty fails? I missed that.

The extra money in the stopgap spending resolution is a done deal.  I don't know about anything else.

[WillK]

I'm curious why they feel they know more ...

Because.    No reason, logic, facts are necessary. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly if he had only spent another 12 years courting Snowe to get her to vote for health care we would all be in some bipartisan fairy-tale happy ending.