START Survey
Rich Lowry at the Corner posted an interesting survey concerning the START treaty, in which a number of potential GOP presidential candidates answer two questions: 1) Do you support President Obama's effort to bring the New START treaty to a vote during the lame-duck session? and 2) Whenever the treaty does come to a vote, would you vote to ratify it?
Every one of the respondents who answered (only Mike Huckabee has yet to respond), answered "no" to both questions. The respondents are: John Bolton, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and John Thune.
I find this unanimous opposition fascinating, especially in view of comments from members here to a post of mine not long ago -- I think it was mine, but that doesn't matter -- critical of the START treaty. A number of members believe it's a good thing, citing the former GOP Secretaries of State who all support it. Some members went so far as to say that conservative opposition was baseless and only partisan. I strongly disagree with that and believe there are many problems with the treaty, but I still would be interested to see people's reactions here to this survey. I realize some could say that given the Tea Party effect etc. potential candidates don't dare support it. I don't know -- just throwing this out there.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: START Survey
That former GOP Secretaries of State support START is just one more illustration of how weak our Secretaries of State have been - from Baker to Condie, and don't even get me started about Powell.
From what I understand, the START treaty gives away our advantages so Russia will dismantle its already outdated decomposing system. When Obama stated that we were a super power whether we like it or not, the hidden message was that he didn't, and seems to be doing his best to make us not. .
Jul '10
Re: START Survey
I'm trying to think of a living former Secretary of State I would trust to walk my dog.
Um...um...nope.
Um...um...nope.
Nov '10
Re: START Survey
I thinks it's absolutely ludicrous that we are even talking about any kind of arms treaty with the Russians.
Re: START Survey
Standfast: That former GOP Secretaries of State support START is just one more illustration of how weak our Secretaries of State have been - from Baker to Condie, and don't even get me started about Powell.
From what I understand, the START treaty gives away our advantages so Russia will dismantle its already outdated decomposing system. When Obama stated that we were a super power whether we like it or not, the hidden message was that he didn't, and seems to be doing his best to make us not. . · Dec 8 at 8:40pm
You're preaching to the choir. I hate to keep citing my book, but I began Chapter 13 with that very quote, to make the point you are making, FWIW.
Aug '10
Re: START Survey
I obviously cannot speak for the GOP candidates but I suspect it may have to do with the cause of arms control having discredited itself during the Cold War. I have opposed arms-control in principle all my life -- it is a narcotic, serves as a limp substitute for force and coercion, fosters a belief in technocracy, nurtures a debilitating political ethos, cannot substitute for political will, is useless against tyrannies, and demoralizes (and de-moralizes) democracies. I can say all that without having any need to know the details of whatever they've cooked up.
Nov '10
Re: START Survey
I thinks it's absolutely ludicrous that we are even talking about any kind of arms treaty with the Russians.
Nov '10
Re: START Survey
My iPhone is posting my posts twice.
May '10
Re: START Survey
If we were smart, we would secretly continue to manufacture nukes so that we could use a treaty like this every four or five years for leverage.
Re: START Survey
Ken. That just means I'll have to agree with you twice --or thrice, as the case may be.
Nov '10
Re: START Survey
Obama isn't Carter-esque; he IS Jimmy Carter. The solar panels on the WH roof was forgivable because it was so trivial, but for crying out loud, START?
If Obama really wants to get his mojo back, maybe he should try passing a national 55 mph speed limit.
Re: START Survey
Did anyone notice the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning? It advised the Senate to ratify the treaty "with caveats." I seldom disagree with the Journal, of course, but if it feels the need to add "caveats," then surely--indeed, obviously--the treaty should be held over until the next Congress, not rammed through in the next ten days or two weeks.
Me? I'm with Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, John Yoo and David Limbaugh. No--and no.
Jul '10
Re: START Survey
Off the top of my head, the two Republican diplomatic figures, in my lifetime, that were worth a hoot were the great Jeane Kirkpatrick and that John Bolton fellow that said no in the Likely Presidential Candidates sampling.
Under the CoC, no and no will have to do. The more accurate but profane version available on request. Colin and Condie, just for starters, should be ashamed of themselves.
Edited on Dec 9, 2010 at 1:17amMay '10
Re: START Survey
What a surprise – all the Republicans who benefit most politically by giving the no answers have done just that. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in particular have proven themselves on countless occasions a willingness to say any nonsense whatever if it plays to their advantage. The other folks on the list have a bit more credibility, but not much in my view – they all share the profession of politics. Perhaps it's time we stopped trusting the politicians who are "on our side" and adopted an overall policy of trusting none of them.
That isn't to say we should or shouldn't pass the treaty. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. I do know that if I wanted an endorsement that mattered, I'd seek out a source without a stake in the political question, and I advise others to do the same.
Oct '10
Re: START Survey
General population polls on detail laden subjects are counter-productive. We have a representative democracy precisely because most of us can't possibly know enough to form an intelligent opinion on matters such as whether or not START is a good idea. I'll assume for argument's sake that the respondents to the survey posted by Rich are reasonably well informed on what is in START, but recent events in Congress tell us that this is a blind leap of faith. Some people I trust, including some of the respondents (i.e. John Bolton), are opposed to START, so I'm not much inclined to support it. But, frankly, I haven't the foggiest idea whether it would, on balance, be better to reject START rather than ratify it.
Jun '10
Re: START Survey
"Perhaps it's time we stopped trusting the politicians who are "on our side" and adopted an overall policy of trusting none of them."
Sounds good to me, excuse please, cough,cough. Since we don't trust none o dem, we sure don't want to sign any treaty they put in front of us, do we?
Actually it has always seemed to me that any form of arms treaty such as this only inhibits ourselves because it is only ourselves whom we can trust. So what's the point? I mean if we can't trust our own politicians, as Conor succinctly points out, how the heck can we trust the Russian politicians for goodness sake?
Aug '10
Re: START Survey
Sisyphus: the two Republican diplomatic figures, in my lifetime, that were worth a hoot were the great Jeane Kirkpatrick and that John Bolton fellow...
Colin and Condie.. should be ashamed of themselves. ·
Edited on Dec 09 at 01:17 am
You know the naming of these two people (giants) together, Kirkpatrick and Bolton, makes me wonder why these two powerhouses were parked at the UN, while the milquetoasts are sent to Foggy Bottom to be SecState.
START is emblematic of the restraint in everything we practice to our great bad fortune. Weak SecStates, matched with appeasement on nuclear weapons has never worked in our behalf. Why do we feel such generous compassion with the cold,evil apparatchiks that have routinely lied to the world, massacred their own people, robbed generations of hope, and left a legacy of hate that festers today from the seeds of unrest(see Islamofascism, South American marxism, progressive activism) ?
What makes the US send the fools to the battle and keep the warriors on a fool's errand ?
Edited on Dec 9, 2010 at 6:40amOct '10
Re: START Survey
flownover has said it so well that my weak echo is the best that I can add.
Oct '10
Re: START Survey
Viewed through the lens of Presidential politics, these opinions of “no” are not surprising. This early in the process of running for President is entirely about risk management. There is considerable risk in saying “yes” to something that may anger a key interest group or segment of the primary voters, than there is to say “no” and follow the herd.
Regardless of the merits of supporting or opposing START, I question the relevancy of using potential Presidential candidates as a gage of whether to support the treaty.
Re: START Survey
Ken Sweeney
Viewed through the lens of Presidential politics, these opinions of “no” are not surprising. This early in the process of running for President is entirely about risk management. There is considerable risk in saying “yes” to something that may anger a key interest group or segment of the primary voters, than there is to say “no” and follow the herd.
Regardless of the merits of supporting or opposing START, I question the relevancy of using potential Presidential candidates as a gage of whether to support the treaty. · Dec 9 at 9:51am
Agree. Considering that NR has already come out strongly against the treaty, these primary favorites have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following suit. Condi's caveats might be a super-sneaky way of convincing everyone to actually vote no against her own exoteric recommendation. But I'm unsure she's that Straussian.
Re: START Survey
Why not support START? Kellogg-Briand did an outstanding job of preventing a devastating and much-feared second World War, and the SALT agreements stopped the Cold War in its tracks. What do we have to lose?