It is day five of the debate on New START and Republicans are set to offer just their second treaty-killing amendment.

Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) is proposing an amendment that inserts language that says there is a relationship between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, Risch and other Senate Republicans are upset that the treaty doesn’t address Russia’s thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. There is a simple reason for this – START, which stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, deals with STRATEGIC nuclear weapons. This is like saying I oppose the START treaty because it doesn’t secure the US border or cure global hunger. It was never intended to address those things. While it would be great if START cured hunger, the fact it doesn’t should have no bearing on the merits of the actual treaty.

Strategic nuclear weapons are high-yield nuclear weapons designed to target population centers or impact an adversary’s ability to wage war, while tactical nuclear weapons are smaller battlefield nuclear weapons used in support of conventional forces. CAP’s Ben Morris-Levenson wrote earlier this year:

This difference highlights a crucial point: even reduced to the levels called for in New START, a strategic arsenal of 1,550 warheads renders any Russian advantage in tactical weapons insignificant in the broader context of deterrence. Nuclear deterrence at the strategic level relies on each side’s ability to annihilate the other… neither side will risk even a limited nuclear exchange because the consequences of escalation are so horrific that even minimal risks become unjustifiable. Russia’s “advantage” in tactical nuclear weapons is therefore largely irrelevant to American security.

Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons are a real problem, largely because due to their smaller size they are more prone to fall in the hands of terrorists. This is why both Republicans and Democrats agree that it is critical to have talks with Russia over its tactical nuclear weapons. But crucially to have these talks, it is imperative to ratify the START treaty.

James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense under Nixon and Ford, and leading arms-control skeptic, endorsed the ratification of a new START treaty in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier this year. He did so largely on the grounds that to deal with tactical nuclear weapons “there is no alternative” but to ratify the START treaty, as START provides us with a “platform” to address tactical weapons.

Watch it:

In other words, in order to begin to address what is a major counter-terrorism concern – the danger of loose Russian tactical nukes falling into the hands of terrorists – we must ratify START. Schlesinger has long been a guiding light to the far right on nuclear policy issues, the Wall Street Journal even called him the right’s “nuclear yoda.”

Republicans may also complain that the Obama administration should have linked the two issues in negotiations, but this is just bad Monday morning quarterbacking. There has never been a treaty on tactical nuclear weapons therefore negotiating one would have taken considerable time. Given that the original START treaty was set to expire within the first year of President Obama taking office and that the Bush administration did no work to lay the groundwork for a New START treaty, let alone a treaty on tactical weapons, linking the two would mean that negotiations would probably still be going on – more than a year after the original START treaty’s expiration. Republicans were also silent in attacking the Bush administration for failing to address Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons.

The Risch amendment therefore is nothing but a poison pill amendment designed to force a renegotiation of the START treaty and therefore kill the treaty. Fortunately, just 51 votes are needed to kill Risch’s amendment and like the McCain amendment on the preamble, this should go down to defeat.

Moments ago, by a 65-31 vote, the Senate acted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the policy banning gays from openly serving in the military. The same six GOP senators who broke with their party during the cloture vote earlier today also voted for repeal: Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, George Voinovich, and Mark Kirk. Two more Republicans — John Ensign and Richard Burr — joined with Democrats in final passage.

Earlier this week, the House had passed the same legislation by 250-175 vote. More than 14,000 servicemembers have been dismissed because of the DADT policy.

For many Democrats, including President Obama, today’s final passage (and the signing of the bill, which will occur in the near future) marks the fulfillment of a promise that they made repeatedly. In a speech to the Human Rights Campaign in October, Obama said, “I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you.”

And in perhaps the most memorable moment of the Netroots Nation liberal bloggers conference this past July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was presented with Lt. Dan Choi’s graduation ring from West Point. Choi, a prominent DADT repeal advocate and Arabic-speaking linguist, was discharged from the military after he came out as gay on The Rachel Maddow Show. At the time, Reid said he would return Choi’s ring when DADT repeal is signed. “When we get it passed, you’ll take it back, right?” Reid said to Choi. “I sure will, but I’m going to hold you accountable,” Choi responded. Watch it:

Last night on the Senate floor, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) complained that it had been a “week from hell” due to having to work on “big issues.” He then grumbled that he had been too busy “stopping some bad ideas” and therefore had no time “to think about START.” Nevermind that the New START treaty was completed in April, giving Graham and his staff eight months to “think about” the treaty. Graham stated:

In conclusion to my colleagues, its been a week from hell. Its been a week where you are 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 START but not a lot and its really wearing on the body…

Here we are a week before Christmas Eve and we’ve talked about a lot of stuff — some important some politics — and this is the first time I’ve really had the chance to talk about START so I’m not blaming anybody, but please don’t blame me that I’ve somehow just ignored START, because we’ve been pretty busy around here stopping some bad ideas or at least trying to.

Watch it:

Graham’s speech follows the admission of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), indicating that the objective of the GOP is to simply obstruct on issue after issue.

On the New START treaty, Republicans demanded ample time because they wanted to offer amendments to the treaty — nevermind that for all intents and purposes treaties cannot be amended. Yet during the three days of debate, Republicans stalled and refused to bring any amendments forward, choosing instead to waste hours of floor time complaining about Senate process on other issues — all time that could have been devoted to amendments or actually discussing the treaty. It wasn’t until 4:00 pm on Friday that Republicans finally submitted an amendment for debate, which pushed the debate on START late into Friday evening.

Senate Republicans had complained that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was being “disrespectful” of Christians by possibly forcing them the hardship of working the week before Christmas. Indeed, Senator Reid has said he will provide the 6-7 days of debate on the START treaty that Republicans have demanded, which would entail working into next week. Since it is clear that the Senate will be in session for as long as is necessary, there is an easy way for Senator Graham and his colleagues to have a long and restful Christmas vacation: stop delaying and obstructing the business of the Senate.

Moments ago, in a vote of 63-33 the Senate invoked cloture on a bill to repeal the 17-year-old Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, paving the way for final passage in the coming days hours. The House passed the measure on Wednesday.

Democrats delivered eloquent speeches in support of open service. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) said, “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places for this country.” Immediately before the vote, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who has been the strongest advocate of repeal in the Senate, urged his colleagues to repeal the ban, saying “We’ve come to a point in our history, I hope, where neither race nor religion, ethnicity, or gender, or sexual orientation should deprive Americans of serving the country as the patriots they are.”

Throughout the debate, Republicans cherry picked statistics from the Pentagon report, complained about the process of bringing the measure to the floor and relied on folksy sayings like, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” to make their case for preserving the policy. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — the biggest supporter of the policy — even conceded that Democrats probably had the votes to pass the measure, before launching into a an awkward condemnation of liberal “bastions and Georgetown cocktail parties.” Watch a compilation:

Six Republicans, including Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) all voted for the measure. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) — the only Democrat to support the Republican filibuster of the measure earlier this month — did not vote.

Today, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Fourty-one mostly Republican senators voted against a bill which would have provided young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents a path to legalization by pursuing a college education or serving in the military. 55 voted in the affirmative.

Immediately before the vote failed, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took the Senate floor to tell the young DREAMers who have come to his office that they were “wasting their time” because the border hasn’t been secured:

To the DREAM Act, I have been involved in comprehensive immigration reform for many years. Senator Durbin and I have talked about how to make the DREAM Act part of comprehensive immigration reform. To those who have come to my office — you’re always welcome to come, but you’re wasting your time.

We’re not going to pass the DREAM Act or any other legalization program until we secure our borders. It will never be done as a stand-alone. It has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform.

Watch it:

What Graham didn’t mention is that though he has supported immigration reform in the past, he and his party are largely responsible for blocking it in 2010. First he held it hostage to health care reform, pitted it against climate change legislation, and then turned his back on it altogether. This summer, he declared his support for changing the 14th amendment to deny the U.S.-born children of immigrants citizenship.

Besides Graham, the Republican senators voting against the DREAM Act today included Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), and George Lemieux (R-FL) — all of whom come from Latino-heavy states and most of whom supported either the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform in the past.

So-called “moderate” Republicans, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and George Voinovich (R-OH) also voted against the bill. They were joined by a handful of Democrats: Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Pryor (D-AK), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Jon Tester (D-MT).

Only three Republicans voted in favor of the bill. After the vote, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos openly wondered how Republicans will be able to ask Latinos to vote for them after killing the DREAM Act.

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a cloture motion on the DREAM Act, setting up a vote that will take place tomorrow. It still remains unclear — if not unlikely — that the legislation will attract the 60 votes needed to limit debate.

One lawmaker who isn’t even on the list of Senate targets is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Despite the fact that he was supportive of the DREAM Act in the past, advocates seem pretty confident that he will stick to his new enforcement-only stance. His daughter — Meghan McCain — however, is slightly more open-minded. Ms. McCain told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell this week that she supports the DREAM Act in theory, but is opposed to the way it is being “jammed” through by Reid:

O’DONNELL: The DREAM Act provides for them a no-cost path to legalization in this country if they should choose it. Is that something you think Republicans should be able to get behind? The Wall Street Journal thinks it’s a good idea.

MCCAIN: I do. I understand and I think the greatest part about being an American is that you can have any education you want. You can be anything you want to be. [...] I worry about the costs. I worry about the legalities of it. But, as a general whole, yes, I do believe that if you’ve been living in this country for five years as a student you should have access to education. [...] I think Harry Reid is trying to jam this through without everyone being able to really analyze what’s really going on in this bill.

But as a general whole yes, I do believe that everyone should have access to any kind of education — especially if you’re going to serve your country in the military. [...] I just don’t know if two weeks away from Christmas with all the things going on in the economy is an appropriate time to be doing this.

Watch it:

Meghan McCain’s hesitations about the DREAM Act don’t really hold water. The DREAM Act has been around since 2001 and you’d think most Republicans would be aware of the changes made to the modified 2010 bill as they were meant to address their concerns. Meanwhile, the CBO found that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over ten years. I’m not sure what McCain is talking about when she refers to the “legality” of the DREAM Act, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that she seems to think it provides “access to education” when what it really does is allow undocumented immigrants who pursue an education (and pay for it themselves) or serve in the military to actually make something of themselves by legally working in the U.S.

Of course, Meghan McCain doesn’t get a vote and she also doesn’t seem to have much influence over her obstinate father — so her qualified support and misinformed concerns about the DREAM Act aren’t really going to affect what happens tomorrow one way or another. However, I predict that, if the DREAM Act fails tomorrow, so-called “moderate” Republicans will be toeing a similar line when the Latino community demands an answer from them in an attempt to minimize the damage done by voting against an issue Latino voters deeply care about.

And, since these arguments don’t hold up, allow me to translate what they really mean: the DREAM Act is a good idea unless it’s being pushed right before Christmas by a Democrat like Harry Reid. It’s a slightly more nuanced message than simply calling it “amnesty.”

Republican Senators have been vigorously complaining that they need as much as two weeks or double or even triple the time taken on previous arms control treaties to debate the New START treaty. They have insisted they need all this time because they need ample time to submit amendments to the treaty, despite the fact that treaties, for all intents and purposes, cannot be amended. For the last two days the START treaty has been before the Senate, yet Republican Senators have still not offered a single amendment. Not one.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who has been shepherding the debate on the Senate floor, has become visibly frustrated by the delay tactics. Kerry has made clear that Senate Democrats are ready to vote for the treaty and to vote on amendments. He has repeatedly asked for Republican Senators to come forward and offer amendments. Here is a snapshot of Senator Kerry throughout the day yesterday asking Republicans to bring forth their amendments and growing increasingly outraged at their stalling.

10:30 am: “We don’t have any amendments, we are prepared to vote.”
11:30 am: “The sooner we can get to some of these amendments… we can discover if something is a flaw or not a flaw.”
11:45 am: “We are now almost at lunch time and we don’t have an amendment.”
1:25 pm: “I would ask the senator if he has an amendment that he is prepared to offer?”
2:00 pm: “They say we don’t have time, who haven’t brought an amendment to the floor. I clearly smell the self-fulfilling prophecy strategy going on here.”
3:30 pm: “They just delay, delay, and delay… We’ve been here for a day and we still haven’t had an amendment.”

Watch it:

The delay tactics in many ways represent business as usual in the senate. As the Progress Report explained, Senate Republicans “intent on blocking any Democratic priority…unleashed a litany of superficial excuses to prevent consideration of these particular measures.” Yesterday Vice President Biden in an interview with Andrea Mitchell called out Senate Republicans and demanded they drop their delay tactics.

Do not let — do not stand in the way of the nation’s best interests. Let the Senate vote. Overwhelming, the American people support the START Treaty. Overwhelmingly, the United States Senate supports the START Treaty. It’s clearly in our national interests. Every former national security adviser, secretary of Defense, the secretary of State on the Republican Party from George Shultz to Colin Powell thinks it’s essential we pass this treaty. Get out of the way. There’s too much at stake for America’s national security. And don’t tell me about Christmas. I understand Christmas. I have been a senator for a long time. I’ve been there many years where we go right up to Christmas. There’s 10 days between now and Christmas. I hope I don’t get in the way of your Christmas shopping, but this is the nation’s business. This is the national security that’s at stake. Act. Act.

Watch it:

Last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded to his daughter Meghan’s claim that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the civil rights issue of her generation by reiterating the Marine Commandant’s opposition to repeal and suggesting that his son Jimmy McCain — who was a Marine — also opposes lifting the ban:

KING: You mentioned the commandant of the Marine Corps, Senator, I ask this next question not to be disrespectful, but because I know you as someone who takes the long trips, who does the research, who talks to the troops, as well as their bosses. You mentioned the commandant of the Marine Corps, he is against this. Your son has been in the Marines, he has served on the front lines. And this is a often a generational issue. Older Americans have a harder time with this than sometimes younger Americans. What does your son think about this?

MCCAIN: You know, my son is now out of the Marine Corps. The proudest moment of his life is having serving in the Marine Corps. His words to me, as so many thousands of others’ words have been to me: it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

KING: So he wants to keep it just in place as it is right now?

MCCAIN: They believe that it is working and I’m very reluctant to discuss my children’s views.

Watch it:

Interestingly, McCain didn’t say he would filibuster the measure, as his daughter predicted, although Republicans can still try to undermine the measure by calling for amendments or insisting that they will not vote for START if the DADT measure comes up for a vote.

Supporters of repeal, however, as well as Senate aides, believe that they do have 60 votes to move forward. In an appearance on Washington Journal this morning, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) disputed that notion, predicting that cloture would not be granted. “I think it will be at the top of the agenda when we come back in January,” he added.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

In their attempt to block any action during the lame duck session of Congress, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) have callously resorted to questioning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) faith for potentially keeping Congress in session through the start of the new Congress next year. Kyl has accused Reid of “disrespecting” Christians, while DeMint said it’s “sacrilegious.”

Several notable leaders of the Christian faith community have already slammed the two senators for using Christmas as an excuse to halt efforts to pass the New START Treaty. Today, several other faith leaders chimed in to condemn the senators’ remarks, noting that delaying a vote on the DREAM Act would also be antithetical to the teachings of Christ and the spirit of Christmas.

Pastor Troy Jackson of the University Christian Church of Ohio told me that he “didn’t realize our elected officials had Christmas break like elementary and high school kids do”:

The DREAM Act would be a great way to honor or celebrate Jesus for Christians. I’m shocked that anyone would think that leaving town or leaving that great bill on the table would somehow be ‘honoring’ of Jesus or would even say that voting it would be sacrilegious.

Today, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform hosted a call featuring conservative leaders from diverse Evangelical denominations. I got the chance to ask the speakers on the call to respond to Kyl and DeMint’s remarks. Rev. Jerry Dykstra, Executive Director of the Christian Reformed Church in North America stated:

Jesus, who was a high respecter of the Sabbath — which was not simply a national or religious holiday, but was their day of complete rest in his own culture — said that on the Sabbath we need to do what is right. If doing what is right means that we have to work through a Christmas holiday, then by all means we work through a Christmas holiday. [...] I think that’s a manuevering that’s really in appropriate.

Dr. Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean if Liberty University School of Law dismissed the senators’ comments entirely:

I’m not sure that I would think that that kind of a comment actually deserves a legitimate answer. The fact of the matter is no one is asking somebody to work on Christmas Day. But if you’re asked to work a couple of additional days — they are servants of the public. I just don’t think such a comment has much merit.

Listen:

Reid has also fired back at Kyl and DeMint, saying, “I don’t need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of Senators Kyl and DeMint to remind me of what Christmas means.”

Debate has started on New START and Republican Senators are offering amendments to the treaty. Senate rules allow the Senate to amend a treaty, but this is dumb. In reality, a treaty cannot be amended. All efforts to amend the text of the treaty are therefore poison pill amendments offered to kill the treaty.

The Senate has NEVER amended the text of any previous arms control treaty. Republican complaints that they need more time so that they can offer amendments to the treaty are not serious. They are efforts either kill the treaty or string out the process to delay action on other items.

The reason this is the case is because amending a treaty would require going back to the other negotiating parties and reopening negotiations. The other party is unlikely just to make a concession, but will ask for something in exchange. This threatens to completely unravel the previous negotiations and the treaty. Amending the START treaty therefore threatens to reopen and therefore unravel months and months of painstakingly balanced negotiations with the Russians. If the Senate amends the treaty, such that it requires reopening negotiations with Russia, than the Russian Duma would likely do exactly the same thing and would offer amendments that the US would perceive as against our interests.

In this vein, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and John Barrasso (R-WY) want to amend the preamble of the treaty, which says there is a connection between offensive and defensive systems. This preamble is like saying water is wet. Henry Kissinger called the preamble to the treaty a “truism” and it provides no constraints on anything. As Senator John Kerry pointed out today in the floor debate, this would kill the treaty, because it would require renegotiating the treaty.

Watch it:

Fortunately, all amendments that are offered can be voted down by a majority vote and will therefore all be defeated. This just makes offering amendments a colossal waste of time, which for Republicans is the entire point. At the end of the day, the treaty that is voted on will be exactly the same treaty that has been in front of the Senate for the past nine months.

As the White House releases its review of the strategy in Afghanistan, claiming “progress” has been made and that a July troop withdrawal is on track, Americans appear increasingly impatient with the decade-long war. A new ABC News-Washington Post poll finds that a record 60 percent of Americans now think the war has “not been worth fighting” — a more than 20-point increase since President Obama’s election two years ago. As the Post notes, it’s “a grim assessment,” and the war in Afghanistan is now as unpopular as the Iraq war was under the Bush administration:

Negative views of the war for the first time are at the level of those recorded for the war in Iraq, whose unpopularity dragged George W. Bush to historic lows in approval across his second term. On average from 2005 through 2009, 60 percent called that war not worth fighting, the same number who say so about Afghanistan now.

Meanwhile, a new NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll shows that while Americans want Obama’s primary focus to be on the economy, their second priority is to bring the troops home from Afghanistan — more than reducing the deficit:

Despite the American peoples’ growing displeasure with the longest war in American history, conservative leaders have already been preparing to delay or scuttle the Obama administration’s plan to begin withdrawing troops in July of next year, much as they resisted pulling out of Iraq. Earlier this month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested he wants to have a permanent U.S. military presence in the country, saying on CNN, “I think it would really secure the gains we made to have a U.S. presence in Afghanistan, two air bases that would be beneficial…as a way to make sure this country never goes back into the hands of the Taliban.”

Earlier this year, Sen. Jon McCain (R-AZ) threw every argument he could against setting a withdrawal date in Afghanistan, saying it was “ill-advised,” that it was a “purely a political decision,” and that it would show weakness. And when RNC Chairman Michael Steele slipped up earlier this year and suggested the war may be unwinnable, conservative pundits and lawmakers pounced on Steele for daring to step out of line.

Republicans have turned the greatest deliberative body into a forum for a non-stop game of chicken. START has been no different. But what seems different about START is that Republicans appear to be swerving.

On Tuesday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) appeared to throw the hammer down on the START treaty when he said he would do everything he could to make it fail. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) followed up with a threat to force a reading of the treaty. But the White House and Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid (D-NV) and John Kerry (D-MA) refused to swerve. Kerry said it was time to “fish or cut bait.” Vice President Biden sent a strong signal saying they weren’t backing down, according to Josh Rogin, Biden said that:

We’d rather lose [the vote on New START] now with the crowd that’s done the work on rather than go back and start from scratch [next session].

All of this indicates that the administration and Senate Democrats are willing to call the bluff of Senate Republicans on START, since they know many, if not most Republicans, do not actually want to vote against the treaty.

Yesterday was therefore a test of whether Senator Kyl could hold his caucus together and he failed. Nine Republicans – the magic number necessary to ratify the treaty – voted for the motion to proceed. Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Jornal spoke to two different GOP aides yesterday. A Senate GOP leadership aide told Weisman that ratification was “very likely” and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to allow debate “went a long way” toward satisfying Republicans. A second aide told Weisman that,

The strong vote today to proceed fundamentally changes the dynamic. It’s pretty clear this treaty is going to pass.

Additionally, in the face of a blistering critique from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Senator Reid, Senator Jim DeMint caved and abandoned his effort to force the senate to read the entire treaty. While Reid did make a concession to put off the official debate until this morning – something that Republicans trumpeted as a concession – the fact is that a number of Senators used the afternoon and evening session to issue their lengthy opening statements on the START treaty, something they would have done anyway. So the amount of time that debate was delayed was far less than Republicans claim.

While this was just a procedural vote, the fact is that the final vote is likely to grow, not shrink. Senators Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson both voted for the treaty in committee, but didn’t vote for the motion to proceed. Corker yesterday evening said on the floor:

It’s my hope – I think I have indicated a willingness to support the treaty… I think this treaty with the t’s crossed and I’s dotted, with the appropriate time allotted, whether this is now or ends up being in February, and if the resolution is not weakened in any way, is still something that I would plan to support.

Watch it:

Satisfying Corker’s concerns should not be a problem whatsoever, since time will be allowed to offer amendments, modernization funding – which includes a massive pork give away to Tennessee – is set, and the resolution of ratification will not be changed from the one that passed the committee. This also applies to Senator Isakson as well.

Ratification of the New START treaty received a huge boost today as it received two-thirds support of the voting Senate on the motion to proceed to debate. While only 51 votes were needed to begin debate, this vote demonstrates that Republicans are divided on the treaty and that it has enough support to achieve ratification. The super majority vote also serves as a significant blow to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who was forced to back down from making the Senate clerk read the text of treaty.

Nine Republicans voted to support the motion to proceed — including Sens. John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), George Voinovich (OH), Richard Lugar (IN), Scott Brown (MA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT). The final vote was 66 to 32. While this was short of the magic number of 67, two senators did not vote, including Democratic Senator Evan Bayh who is expected to support the treaty. In other words, this vote indicates that treaty will likely have the 67 votes needed for ratification.

Moreover, this was a procedural vote, not a vote on the final treaty. Republicans have often voted to filibuster legislation that they claim to support. For instance, Brown, Snowe, Lugar, and Murkowski all voted to filibuster Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for procedural reasons even though all claimed to support its repeal.

On START, Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) both voted for the treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but voted no on the procedural vote. Furthermore, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has spoken previously about how he supports the treaty. So if anything, support for the treaty is likely to increase not decrease when it comes for a full vote. One would also expect this to be the case when senators can no longer hide behind a procedural justification (such as wanting to vote next year) to vote no and are forced once and for all to vote for a treaty supported by the U.S. military, every living Republican Secretary of State, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, the nuclear lab directors, and all of our allies.

Today’s vote is also a big blow to Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who just yesterday questioned whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had the votes and threatened to work to make sure START failed. As Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk noted, “This is the worst outcome for Kyl: irrelevance.”

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

Ratification of the New START treaty received a huge boost today as it received two-thirds support of the voting Senate on the motion to proceed to debate. While only 51 votes were needed to begin debate, this vote demonstrates that Republicans are divided on the treaty and that it has enough support to achieve ratification. The super majority vote also serves as a significant blow to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who was forced to back down from making the Senate clerk read the text of treaty.

Nine Republicans voted to support the motion to proceed — including Sens. John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), George Voinovich (OH), Richard Lugar (IN), Scott Brown (MA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT). The final vote was 66 to 32. While this was short of the magic number of 67, two senators did not vote, including Democratic Senator Evan Bayh who is expected to support the treaty. In other words, this vote indicates that treaty will likely have the 67 votes needed for ratification.

Moreover, this was a procedural vote, not a vote on the final treaty. Republicans have often voted to filibuster legislation that they claim to support. For instance, Brown, Snowe, Lugar, and Murkowski all voted to filibuster Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for procedural reasons even though all claimed to support its repeal.

On START, Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) both voted for the treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but voted no on the procedural vote. Furthermore, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has spoken previously about how he supports the treaty. So if anything, support for the treaty is likely to increase not decrease when it comes for a full vote. One would also expect this to be the case when senators can no longer hide behind a procedural justification (such as wanting to vote next year) to vote no and are forced once and for all to vote for a treaty supported by the U.S. military, every living Republican Secretary of State, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, the nuclear lab directors, and all of our allies.

Today’s vote is also a big blow to Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who just yesterday questioned whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had the votes and threatened to work to make sure START failed. As Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk noted, “This is the worst outcome for Kyl: irrelevance.”

Daniel Brumberg of the U.S. Institute of Peace and Barry Blechman of the Stimson Center have a good piece in Foreign Policy discussing some of the conclusions of the recent USIP/Stimson report on Iran.

Knocking down spurious claims that Iran is just a U.S. air strike away from a pro-American democratic revolution, the authors write that the best thing that the U.S. can do promote political reform in Iran “is to make détente with the Islamic Republic a top priority“:

Sustained U.S.-Iranian engagement would undercut the “threat” that ultra hardliners regularly invoke to legitimate their efforts to pummel or isolate their critics. The latter include prominent conservatives, many of whom are eager to deflect the efforts of Revolutionary Guard to undermine the autonomy of clerical institutions, private sector businesses, and the parliament. Fighting for their very political and economic survival, these conservative leaders are likely to push for a process of internal political accommodation that could open up some doors for reformists. While they face many hurdles, one thing is sure: an escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions (much less a war!) will only harm the efforts of those Iranian leaders who favor internal dialogue to make their voices heard.

In the coming decade, Iran’s politics will be defined by a slow, agonizing struggle waged through rather than against the institutions of the Islamic Republic. If we indulge in the seductive dream of a sudden democratic revolution — whether delivered by bombs from above or by popular resistance from below — we will destroy the seeds of a political change in Iran. But if we we push for a process of engagement that moves Iran and the U.S. from conflict to diplomatic coexistence, we can help nurture Iran’s own capacity to change and transform from within.

While I’m a bit skeptical about the claim that the struggle will be “waged through rather than against the institutions of the Islamic Republic” — as I read things, it will probably be a bit of both — in terms of the effects that U.S. threats have on Iran’s democracy movement, this tracks pretty closely with what Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji told me earlier this year. Ganji said that fear of a U.S. attack causes Iranian democracy activists to scale back their rhetoric:

“Since Iranians, in particular opposition groups, do not want to see a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq in Iran,” Ganji said, “they’ve actually had to scale back their opposition to the government in order not to encourage an invasion [by the U.S.]”

Ganji was adamant that talk of a U.S. military option was harmful to the cause of Iranian democracy. “If you do not have the threat of foreign invasion and you do not use the dialog of invasion and military intervention, the society itself has a huge potential to oppose and potentially topple the theocratic system,” Ganji said. “What I’m trying to get to is that jingoistic, militaristic language used by any foreign power would actually be detrimental to this natural evolution of Iranian society.”

In a November op-ed, CFR’s Ray Takeyh suggested that history offers a model to work with:

The Helsinki Accord of 1975 invigorated the moribund opposition groups behind the Iron Curtain and ensured a smooth transition to a post-communist reality. More so than arms races and arms control treaties, those accords defied the skeptics and cynics by contributing to the collapse of the mighty Soviet empire. An emphasis on human rights today can not only buttress the viability of the Green Movement but also socialize an important segment of the security services, clerical estate and intelligentsia to the norms to which a state must adhere in order to become a member of global society. The successor generation of Iranian leaders would then be more sensitive to their obligations to citizens and the international community. By linking its diplomacy to human rights behavior, the United States could mitigate Iran’s nuclear ambitions and pave the way for a peaceful transition from clerical autocracy to a more responsible and humane government.

For any of this to possibly work, of course, we have to rid ourselves of the illusion that we can just bomb our way out of the problem.

Back in January, President of Our Savior Lutheran Church and prominent Texas Republican Norman Adams launched Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy, a coalition which claims to offer “a ‘sensible’ solution to our immigration problem.” Adams’ plan — which would issue most undocumented immigrants a worker permit — isn’t exactly being met with open arms by members of his own party.

That’s why Steven Hotze, whom Right Wing Watch describes as an “ultra-right-wing Texas activist,” came to Adams’ defense earlier this week. “I am taking my stand with Norman Adams,” declared Hotze on the Texas GOP Vote blog. However, while Adams believes a sensible immigration policy is necessary because the “combined fertility rate of American born citizens is barely 2%, considered unsustainable” and due to the fact that Americans “have aborted nearly fifty million children in the United States!,” Hotze has a slightly different take. According to him, Latinos are natural Republican allies against Democrats and Muslims:

The majority of the Hispanic culture in America is Christian, pro-family, pro-life and pro-free enterprise. Sounds like they would make great Republicans to me. Let’s go recruit them!

Gentlemen, it seems that the real problem we face is the Muslim immigration invasion of America. The Hispanics are our natural allies against the Democrats and Muslims.

Ironically, Hotze also noted, “It seems to me that there may be nativistic and prejudicial thinking on the immigration issue by many Caucasians.” When it comes to Latinos though, that thinking is unfounded says Hotze. “I like people who take risks to help their families and are willing to work to better their families’ lives.” Yet, apparently, that criteria doesn’t apply to Muslim immigrants.

Besides the fact that Hotze’s reasoning is downright twisted, the “natural alliance” might not play out as he expects. As far as the politics of Latin America itself go, the recent recognition of Palestine by three South American governments certainly counters the notion that Latinos abroad necessarily perceive Islam as a threat. Meanwhile, it would make more sense for Latinos in the U.S. to stand in solidarity with the Muslim community against the racist vitriol and anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Republican party rather than allowing themselves to be used as a political wedge.

(H/T Latina Lista)

Finally, after months of playing hard to get Kyl shows his true colors – he is the far right partisan extremist everyone thought he was. Yesterday Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he would work “very hard” to make sure the New START “treaty fails.” With this move Kyl has shown that he absolutely cannot be trusted on the START treaty.

It is now obvious that all of the negotiations over nuclear weapons funding over the past year were just part of a stalling strategy. Senator Kyl never intended to support the treaty in this session. This was pretty apparent early on, as I noted back in February, May, June, July, August, September at every step of the way Kyl has urged delay.

Now Kyl and some other Republicans are jumping up and down saying lets just vote in January! This is not credible. And Harry Reid and the White House should not trust anything Kyl says or promises. 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.

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.

In a last gasp, Frank Gaffney and others on the extreme right held a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday to urge Senate Republicans to oppose the New START treaty. Their efforts look doomed. Despite throwing gobs of money into an anti-START campaign and having an incredibly favorable political climate, the far right has failed to hold its moderates. There are now enough votes to ratify the treaty regardless of what Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) thinks.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is therefore indicating he will bring the treaty to the floor of the Senate tomorrow. On almost every other piece of legislation the GOP can block legislation through filibuster without actually voting against the specific piece legislation. We saw this on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell last week where Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) all claimed to support DADT, but then proceeded to vote to filibuster because of a ridiculous process complaint. Thus GOP moderates have been able to adopt moderate positions without having to vote for them. But the GOP cannot do this on a treaty, because it only takes 50 votes to begin debate. Therefore on START moderate Republican Senators will actually have to vote up or down on the treaty.

This makes the START treaty a real test of the craziness of the Republican party. Tellingly very few Republicans want to align with Frank Gaffney and oppose the treaty on its merits and now a real split has emerged within the Republican caucus over the treaty. Few Republicans want to oppose a treaty that is unanimously backed by the US military and almost the entire foreign policy establishment of both parties. That’s why for those just looking to deny President Obama a “victory” the easiest course is to gin up some complaint over process to push for a delay.

This now looks like it is already being set in motion with news that START will come to the floor. Thus far the only GOP talking point during the lame duck session against the treaty has been a process complaint that there wasn’t enough time or that the lame duck period was not an appropriate time to do the treaty. These complaints are completely absurd.

First, there is no reason why the treaty needs to take a long time. Kyl has been demanding “two weeks” of floor time. That is absolutely absurd. The original START treaty, which was introducing a brand new monitoring and verification regime, took just five days. The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) under George W. Bush took just two days. There is zero reason New START should take more than two or three days considering that its reductions are modest and entail no change to nuclear force posture and that it simply updates and extends a verification regime already in place. In other words, this isn’t a brand new treaty that is changing the status quo – this treaty simply maintains the status quo.

Second, nothing about this process has been rushed or jammed through. To accommodate Republicans, the process had already been delayed repeatedly over the last nine months. In fact, Democratic Senators have been too accommodating of the GOP’s process whining, postponing a committee vote in August and delaying a floor vote in the fall. The treaty was delayed due to GOP complaints.

Finally, this is the appropriate Senate to address the treaty. The 111th Congress is the one that has been involved in the negotiations – it sent Senators from both parties to consult with negotiators in Geneva last year, it has reviewed the treaty for the last nine months, that has held more than 20 hearings, and submitted 1000 questions to the administration.

Jennifer Rubin suggests a “reset” for Obama’s Iran policy:

There’s a Woody Allen joke that reminds us that everything our mothers told us was good for us — milk, sun and red meat — isn’t, actually. After a week of feckless Iran diplomacy and discussion with some very smart Iran gurus, I’m thinking we need to start asking whether that isn’t true about our policy based on economic sanctions and fruitless discussion with the Iranian regime.

In terms of the approach that Rubin derides as “feckless diplomacy”, Rubin might consider what Israeli analyst Meir Javedanfar had to say about it: “The fact is that whatever gripes Republicans may have about Obama’s domestic policies, his diplomatic drive and consensus building in the international community has done considerable damage to the Iranian regime’s global standing, as well as its business interests.” According to Javedanfar, “after only two years in office, Obama has done more to undermine the regime of Ali Khamenei over the course of two years than George W. Bush did in eight.”

Likewise, Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji has said that Obama deserves some credit for the events upon which Rubin proposes to capitalize, praising Obama’s “change in discourse” for helping to create political space for the Green movement in Iran. The question now is how to help restore some of that space that has been retaken by the regime, and continue to increase it.

Javedanfar, Ganji, and quite a few other Iranians I’ve spoken to clearly don’t believe that discussions with the regime have been “fruitless.” But Rubin opposes continuing them, claiming that “we bestow an aura of legitimacy” on the regime by negotiating. I know this is a favorite notion of conservatives, but it really makes no sense. It’s not like we’re dealing with a government in exile or a nationalist insurgency. Iran’s is a government that is firmly in control of its territory, and thus not really requiring our legitimation.

While Rubin insists that, “So long as we are talking, we are more inclined to pull our punches on issues like human rights atrocities when we meet,” there is, again, no evidence that this is really true. We negotiated with the Soviets over nukes while still highlighting our differences in other areas. There’s no reason we can’t do the same with Iran (and my sense from talking to administration officials is that we are moving in that direction). Furthermore, continuing to talk with Iran provides us more potential leverage points on human rights than simply walking away and lecturing them from afar, which would actually alleviate the pressure that comes with being presented with real choices.

Set against allowing Iran even limited enrichment of nuclear materials, Rubin warns “the longer we talk, the more likely a ‘compromise’ of this type will emerge.” She later writes, however, that “there is no indication that the Iranian regime is capable of making a deal,” so I’m not really sure what the problem is.

I don’t disagree with some of what Rubin suggests, especially regarding elevating human rights in our approach and speeding the provision of anti-censorship tools to Iranian activists. Progressive organizations like CAP, National Security Network, The Century Foundation, and the National Iranian American Council have all been calling for these things for some time. But this doesn’t require “reset,” it just requires making it part of the agenda.

But then we get to what I think is the real point of the exercise, which is to begin to normalize the idea of yet another large-scale U.S. military intervention in the Middle East:

[W]e should begin to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force. When there is a credible threat of force — not occupation or invasion, but strikes sufficient to hobble Iran’s nuclear program, military and Revolutionary Guard — the decision-making calculus may change. What of the notion that the nation will rally around the flag if attacked? Well, that depends on the nature of the assault and, moreover, how far the regime has alienated the Iranian people by its serial killings, jailings and prison rapes. There is good reason to believe that a wide anti-government coalition views the regime as illegitimate and acting in ways contrary to its stated Islamic precepts. In these circumstances, an attack would serve as a tipping point rather than a rallying point.

Now read that again, and notice the extraordinary amount of work that conjecture is doing here. We’re talking, conservatively, weeks of bombing for “strikes sufficient to hobble Iran’s nuclear program, military and Revolutionary Guard,” weeks in which a lot of extremely bad things could, and very likely would, happen. And I’m unaware of any such episode ever occurring in the history of strategic bombing where the population under attack directed their rage at their government, rather than at the people bombing them. Read more

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the nations of the world rediscovered consensus on addressing global warming pollution at the international climate convention in Cancun, Mexico. As hosts of the 2010 conference, the Mexican government had to not only bring parties together to come to agreement on policy, but also to restore trust in global governance — the concept that the world’s nations can work together as one on the problems that face all of humanity. (Not to be confused, unless you’re Glenn Beck or Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), with the entirely different concept of “global government.”)

Late Friday night, the representatives of these varied nations chose hope. With a roar of applause overwhelming Bolivia’s dissenting voice, they strongly endorsed the Cancun Accords, comprehensive documents that allowed the United States and China — the world’s top economies and top polluters — to join the fight against global warming. Countries from every corner of the world noted the mortal threat from destroying our atmosphere through fossil-fuel pollution and supported this international agreement. Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed the success of the United Nations process and the need to do much more:

In the days and months ahead, the United States will work with our friends and partners to keep the world focused on this urgent challenge and to continue building on this progress.

The Cancun compacts have restored hope that the governments of the world can in fact work together on global warming, but now the work at home has to begin.

ThinkProgress’s Brad Johnson has been reporting and tweeting live from the international climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.