treaty this week and replied, calgon, take me away. it s been a week from hell. it s been a week where you re dealing with a lot of big issues from texas to funding the government to special interest politics. and i ve had some time to think about s.t.a.r.t. but not a lot, and it s really wearing on the body. senator graham has actually had more than some time to think about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. it was signed on april 8th. and senate debate on it has lasted longer than debate on its last two predecessors combined. perhaps the most fascinating twist on republican opposition to s.t.a.r.t., being how much of it arose as a threat to the administration not to repeal don t ask, don t tell. the republican party claiming the treaty will make u.s. vulnerable to nuclear missiles from north korea and iran, but they would have voted for it no problem if only gays had been kept out of the military. huh? if you really want to have a chance of passing s.t.a.r.t., you d better start over and
it s been a week from hell. it s been a week where you re dealing with a lot of big issues from taxes to funding the government to special interest politics. and i ve had some time to think about s.t.a.r.t., but not a lot. and it s really wearing on the body. senator graham has actually had more than some time to think about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. it was signed on april 8th. and senate debate on it has lasted longer than debate on its last two predecessors combined. perhaps the most fascinating twist on republican opposition to s.t.a.r.t., the how much of it arose as a threat to the administration, not to repeal don t ask, don t tell. the republican party leadership putting itself in the position of claiming the treaty will make u.s. vulnerable to nuclear missiles from north korea and iran, but they would have voted for it, no problem, if only gays had been kept out of the military. huh? if you really want to have a chance at passing s.t.a.r.t., you better start over and do it
congress, they wouldn t be so keen on delivering these progressive policy initiatives. and i do believe that most of the senators, republican senators, would have been happy to say no to unemployment insurance. so the president was very backed into the corner. i think s.t.a.r.t. is a little bit different. dropping, you know, if it went on to the next congress, it wouldn t be good for the united states. it wouldn t be good for national security. but again, it wouldn t take, you know, 20, 30 million americans and cut them off from checks. so i think the president had a little more room to maneuver with s.t.a.r.t., and that strengthens your negotiating hand when you have more room to maneuver. david corn, washington editor for mother jones, thanks a lot. another promise, a vote tomorrow on net neutrality rules of the fcc. a question over who controls the series of tubes? who gets to decide what you see? and who picks up the tab? next. [ male announcer ] they ve been tested, built
he s just now he s a mccain wannabe. but only in terms of crankiness. final question, i want to get your thoughts on this, on the strategy here because it occurred to me today that if s.t.a.r.t. does pass and it is now looking like it s going to pass. you have two different models. basically the white house blinked for the republicans saying we re going to hold these other things hostage unless you deal with it. they said the same thing about s.t.a.r.t. and they went ahead anyway and called the bluff, and it looks like they re going to get s.t.a.r.t., and i wonder what that says about how much republicans are bluffing when they do this kind of thing. well, i think on the tax cut deal, the president s argument was that he was playing chicken with a bunch of people who were irresponsible. and who were actually willing at the time to let the tax cuts extensions not continue for middle class, to let unemployment insurance not go on, and that come the next
dealing with a lot of big issues from taxes to funding the government to special interest politics. and i ve had some time to think about s.t.a.r.t., but not a lot. and it s really wearing on the body. senator graham has actually had more than some time to think about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. it was signed on april 8th. and senate debate on it has lasted longer than debate on its last two predecessors combined. perhaps the most fascinating twist on republican opposition to s.t.a.r.t., the how much of it arose as a threat to the administration, not to repeal don t ask, don t tell. the republican party leadership putting itself in the position of claiming the treaty will make u.s. vulnerable to nuclear missiles from north korea and iran, but they would have voted for it, no problem, if only gays had been kept out of the military. huh? if you really want to have a chance at passing s.t.a.r.t., you better start over and do it the next congress, because this lame duck has been poisoned.