Add 'em up.
It’s a simple math problem. The Democrats and independents in the Senate — 56 + 2 = 58 — have committed their support to New START. To ratify the treaty, supporters need to muster 67 affirmative votes, which means at least 9 Republican senators need to buy in. But who?
Politico gives us four names: Collins (R-ME); Snowe (R-ME); Lugar (R-IN); and Bennett (R-UT). Joe Cirincione gives us four more likelies: Corker (R-TN); Isackson (R-GA); McCain (R-AZ); Voinovich (R-OH).
Dare to wager?
Over the past month, proponents of the New START Treaty have mustered an impressive campaign to bolster support for what many perceived as a dying deal. Rather than discuss the pros and cons of passing the treaty, or whether the hold-up is about politics or security, I will instead make a prediction: New START will be ratified by the Senate before the end of the year. The objections to the treaty have been rebutted and the concerns of skeptics largely assuaged.
Via Yale Law’s Avalon Project:
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 254, which I send to the desk.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the joint resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
“Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
“Therefore be it
“Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”
The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a second is considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Earlier this week, K.C. Johnson made the argument that diplomatic and political historians needed to enter the WikiLeaks debate, in order to add the necessary context to the question of the effect of the revelations of the State Dept. documents. I had hoped to do my part here, as a diplomatic historian, but other work this week intervened. Fortunately, Paul W. Schroeder takes up the task admirably in today’s NY Times. As he notes, many diplomatic achievements of modern history probably wouldn’t have been possible if WikiLeaks had its way and all such dealings were 100% transparent. What’s interesting is that he brings up Nixon and Kissinger without bringing up their most famous secret diplomatic success, the opening of relations with China in the early 1970s. Without secrecy, Kissinger never would have been able to make the necessary preliminary trips to meet with Zhou Enlai and Mao prior to Nixon’s own public trip to Beijing. Not only did the move change Cold War international relations, but it helped change the direction of Chinese history, bringing it the economic success that we’re seeing today. But in Julian Assange’s world, that success should not happen, because it was done in secret.