Political theater

This gem from “Mr.Benson” at 4&20:

It’s true, I admit. Those damn Republicans, that idiot Ronald Reagan. If it had been up to the liberals, we’d have surrendered to the Soviet Union long ago and only one side would have warheads.

The subject at hand is the new START treaty, and the reduced number of warheads that the U.S. and Russia would be allowed to deploy. It’s in the process of being shot down. Senator John Kyl of Arizona appears to the point man for this affair.

There are 57 Democratic senators, and two independents who caucus with them in the lame duck session. To ratify a treaty would take all of them plus eight Republicans. John Kyl, prior to this time, has been reasonable on the subject, wanting only to make sure that we continue to spend untold billions on our warhead stock to keep it spit-polished. (Our nuclear stock is offensive in purpose, and the U.S. would never willingly give up an advantage.)

The assumption behind all writing I have seen on this subject is that all 59 in the Democratic caucus would support the treaty. But how do we know that? Since Obama took office in 2008, Democrats have allowed the Republicans to filibuster anything they want, using that as a convenient excuse for the Democrats’ amazing legislative failures.

Far more likely is mere politics – there are too many conservative Democrats to get anything worthwhile passed, and so they work with the Republican caucus in the back room. Republicans take heat for filibusters, and the Democratic base focuses on the Mean-Old-Other-Party, forgetting that they have the power with 59 and an ounce of cleverness to do anything they want.

Behind all of this is an “Obama” proposal to spend an additional $84.1 billion on the nuclear complex in the next ten years, out-Bushing the Bushies by 20%. [Note: He has since offered to pad this with an additional $4.1 billion.] There will easily be enough votes for that. So the result of all this maneuvering is no treaty and increased spending on nukes under Obama, with John Kyl the point-man for the theater of distraction. Clever, eh?

Other interesting features of this debate: the nuclear threat from Iran, which is no threat at all, is prominently mentioned as a reason for continued build-up of the U.S. arsenal. That’s ludicrous, but it gets worse. This is from a Washington Post article:

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has told newly elected Republican lawmakers not to “listen to desperate politically motivated arguments about the need for hasty consideration” of the treaty.

Sarah Palin, a very stupid woman who doesn’t read and cannot think properly, is now advising lawmakers on foreign treaties. There are no words available in the language to describe this. Perhaps someone fluent in French or Spanish or Swahili can give me the appropriate phrase.