As ThinkProgress and The Progress Report have documented, there is a growing coalition of both Tea Party-backed conservatives and stalwart progressives who are coming together to demand cuts to the bloated defense budget. This coalition was given further momentum earlier this month, when the co-chairs of President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission released a report that calls for $100 billion in defense cuts.

Now, 23 major conservative leaders have sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) asking them to “institute principled spending reform” that includes “proposing cuts” to the Pentagon budget. The conservative leaders, which include Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips, and FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe, note that “Department of Defense spending, in particular, has been provided protected status that has isolated it from serious scrutiny and allowed the Pentagon to waste billions in taxpayer money.”

The conservatives write that ignoring “the burden military spending places on the taxpayers” promotes an “ethos” of “reckless spending.” They conclude that “any such Department of Defense favoritism would signal that the new Congress is not serious about fiscal responsibility and not ready to lead.” They end their letter by writing, “We call on you to lead the crusade for a new era of responsibility – one that knows no sacred cows“:

We write to urge you to institute principled spending reform that rejects the notion that spending cuts can be avoided in certain parts of the federal budget. Department of Defense spending, in particular, has been provided protected status that has isolated it from serious scrutiny and allowed the Pentagon to waste billions in taxpayer money. A new Congress, with a clear mandate to cut spending and the size of government, should signal its fiscal resolve by proposing cuts for all federal spending.

Ignoring the burden military spending places on the taxpayers promotes the same reckless spending ethos that led to failed “stimulus” policies, government bailouts and a prolonged economic recession. Leadership on spending requires commitment that aims to permanently change the bias toward profligacy, not simply stem the tide in the short-term. True fiscal stewards cannot eschew real spending reform by protecting pet projects in the federal budget.

Any such Department of Defense favoritism would signal that the new Congress is not serious about fiscal responsibility and not ready to lead. As we enter a new Congress and search for ways to significantly decrease the size of government, we call on you to lead the crusade for a new era of responsibility – one that knows no sacred cows.

Conservative leaders are right to call for reining in defense spending to battle the deficit. The defense budget for FY2010 is a whopping $533.8 billion, larger than the 2008 GDP of 116 countries. And the Department of Defense has been a major factor in the growth of the budget deficit, accounting for 65 percent of the discretionary spending increase since 2001.

While numerous Republican legislators have endorsed cutting defense spending as one way to reduce the budget deficit, it is unclear if the GOP leadership will endorse such a plan. Unfortunately, in the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge For America,” Republican leaders explicitly exempted defense-related spending from waste-trimming. Yet many analysts do believe that the tea party-progressive coalition will successfully start to rein in defense spending. Yesterday, Morgan Keegan analyst Brian Ruttenbur “said he expects defense spending to slow down dramatically” in the near future, dropping “revenue expectations for Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., L-3 Communications, Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics.”

In response to criticism for stalling the New START treaty, Senate Republicans have insisted that all they are talking about is a delaying a vote for a couple of months. After all, what’s the difference, Republicans insist, between a vote in December and a vote in February? The difference is that the idea that there will be a vote in January or February is a myth. Only the most naive in the ways of Washington would believe differently. Let’s be clear: delaying a vote likely means the death of the treaty.

First of all, the treaty ratification process will have to start all over. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could technically vote the treaty out of committee again immediately, but with a change in members on both sides of the aisle, new hearings will be insisted upon by the new minority members. New Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), among others, have in fact already demanded this. Therefore, these new round of hearings will take time. So we are likely looking at a delay in the committee vote until about April.

If the treaty is voted out of committee, it will then need Senate floor time and will need the votes of 15 Republicans instead of 9. And to make the ratification math even harder, some of these new Republicans are replacing more moderate Republicans, such as Bob Bennett (R-UT) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

The treaty will therefore be firmly in the hands of the Senate Republican leadership. We don’t know if Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is just trying to kill the treaty quietly or if he wants to push it into next year to gain even more leverage in order extort more nuclear pork funding.

Kyl initially tied his potential support for START to funding increases for the nuclear weapons complex — an issue that is not affected or related to the treaty. The Administration capitulated and capitulated again to Kyl’s demands and is now planning to allocate $85 billion over ten years, about a 20 percent increase more than the Bush administration. Yet Kyl has refused to take yes for an answer and has continuously moved the goal posts. Now no one actually knows what Kyl wants anymore.

Furthermore, what we witnessed over the past year from Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was a deliberate strategy to delay and obstruct the treaty. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was set to vote in August, Republicans insisted on delay, accusing the committee of “rushing.” Following the vote in bipartisan committee vote in September, Republicans insisted a floor vote couldn’t happen before the election because it would “reek of politics” –- despite the fact the original START treaty was voted on just before an election. Kyl himself even told Reuters in August that the lame duck period was the appropriate period. Reuters paraphrased:

the Senate might need a “lame duck” session if it wants to vote on the new START this year, he [Kyl] said.

Now Republicans say that a lame duck session is not an appropriate place to vote on a treaty (I guess voting to impeach a President in a lame duck session, despite having lost seats in the election is acceptable, however).

What we do know, however, is that there is no reason to believe that Kyl will be in any rush to ratify the treaty in the new year. In fact, one can already predict the new excuses for delay. First, it will be needing to wait for the new President’s budget, then it will be because we need to guarantee that the congress approves the new spending in the FY12 budget, then some low level Russian official will say something about not liking missile defense and Kyl will say “see we can’t do the treaty” or “we need more time.”

On top of all this, the 2012 election starts in full swing next year. With Republican candidates tripping over themselves to move to the right (Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have already come out in opposition to the treaty), the chances that the Republican leadership in the Senate would provide President Obama a “victory,” however slight a victory, becomes increasingly less likely.

So while it might not be now or never for the START treaty, it will certainly be perceived that way in Moscow and other capitals around the world. And the implications of its failure, or perceived failure will be very serious.

Last week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office released a stinging analysis of Prince William County Supervisors chairman Corey Stewart’s (R) “Virginia Rule of Law” — an immigration policy similar an ordinance Stewart pushed through his own county that he wants Virginia to adopt.

Cuccinelli’s office deemed several provisions of the law “unconstitutional” and “unnecessary.” Despite the fact that the office of one of the most right wing state attorney generals in the country said the “Virginia Rule of Law” goes too far, Stewart doesn’t plan on backing down. The Washington Examiner reports:

“I’ve run up against a lot of opposition on illegal immigration from pro-amnesty and other liberal groups,” Stewart said. “I never expected to be attacked from the rear by another conservative like Ken Cuccinelli.”

The showdown over illegal immigration is pitting two like-minded conservatives against each other over the hot-button issue once again boiling over in Virginia. [...]

Still, Stewart was adamant about expanding the Prince William approach statewide. “Whether it’s Cuccinelli or the pope, I’m not backing down on illegal immigration,” Stewart said. Furthermore, Stewart said, Cuccinelli’s analysis is moot as it did not specifically review the Prince William policy he is now advocating. “Our policy has been in effect for more than two years and has withstood all legal scrutiny,” he said.

Stewart’s characterization of his proposed policy isn’t entirely accurate. Prince William County’s law did not withstand all legal scrutiny. The Prince William ordinance initially required police to check the immigration status “of anyone who breaks a law, no matter how minor.” It was later modified amidst a controversy over its constitutionality to simply direct police officers to check the status of anyone in police custody who they suspect to be an undocumented immigrant. Meanwhile, back in June, Stewart himself boasted that the “Virginia Rule of Law” proposal would go further than the original ordinance passed by Prince William County in 2007. And it does.

Stewart’s proposal makes the transport of undocumented immigrants a class 4 felony. Cuccinelli’s analysis pointed out that the section “creates sweeping new classes of felonies and will have a significant fiscal impact.” Much like Arizona’s immigration law, Stewart also wants to outlaw day labor work. Cuccinelli’s office noted that the “provision is contrary to the Attorney General’s opinion issued in February regarding federal preemption in the area of employment of unauthorized aliens.”

The “Virginia Rule of Law” additionally makes it illegal for undocumented immigrants to buy property. Cuccinelli struck down this provision as well, stating, “[t]he provisions of this section raise significant ex post facto/takings concerns that are not easily addressed through revision or redrafting.” Lastly, Cuccinelli’s office explained that the policy “raises potential equal protection concerns, because it specifically differentiates between United States citizens and other persons in protecting privileges and immunities.”

A Washington Post editorial notes that Prince William County’s immigration ordinance should be approached as a cautionary tale, not a model for the rest of the state. A study released by the University of Virginia last week found that Prince William County’s policy “has not affected most types of crime in Prince William County,” but it has “seriously disrupted police-community relations in the County.” “The County was not able to implement the policy without creating a serious ethnic gap in perception of the police, ratings of the County as a place to live, and trust in the local government; Hispanic opinions on these matters plunged to unprecedented lows in 2008,” concluded the writers of the report.

Conservative outrage over the WikiLeaks release of secret State Department cables has reached a fever pitch, with Rep. Pete King (R-NY) — who will chair the Homeland Security Committee in the new Congress — demanding the group be declared a terrorist organization. Former GOP Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum echoed King yesterday, saying WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is guilty of “terrorism,” while a number of Republican lawmakers have called for treason charges against suspected leaker Bradley Manning. Meanwhile, a number of conservative figures have fantasized about committing bodily harm to Assange.

But former Bush speechwriter-cum-leading torture advocate Marc Thiessen took this outrage to comic heights last night on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show. Proving that neoconservatives never miss an opportunity to call for war, Thiessen suggested that if diplomacy fails to capture Assange, the U.S. should “go and get him” — with or without his host country’s permission:

THIESSEN: There are plenty of tools at our disposal. … But failing that, we can act unilaterally. We can go and get him without another country’s permission. We did it with General Noriega — there’s authority within the Office of Legal Counsel and that we can go and take anybody anywhere in the world.

Watch it:

Assange has said he travels constantly to avoid arrest, but WikiLeaks’ base of operations is in Sweden — a close ally of the U.S. — and Assange is believed to spend some time there. Thiessen also mentioned Iceland, a NATO member, which considered offering asylum to Assange, as did Switzerland, another U.S. ally. More recently, Assange, a citizen of U.S. ally Australia, has been living in London and traveled to Berlin. But today, Ecuador offered Assange residency “with no problems and no conditions.” Perhaps Thiessen would be more comfortable invading Ecuador than England or Germany.

It’s worth noting that going and getting Gen. Manuel Noriega, the former narco-dictator of Panama, as Thiessen suggested, involved a full-scale invasion of the country with 25,000 American troops. Former President George H.W. Bush “broke both international law and [U.S.] government policies” in ordering the invasion in 1989, which resulted in the loss of 23 American servicemembers and the wounding of another 325, the death of hundreds of Panamanians, and major lasting damage to Panama’s economy and capital city. “There was a lot of euphoria because we got rid of Noriega,” Julio Sosa, a former Panamanian diplomat who now lives in Houston, told the Houston Chronicle last year. “But the people have preferred not to remember it. It’s a painful passage for a lot of people. There were a lot of innocent lives lost.”