Robert J. Elisberg

Tidbit Bay

Robert J. Elisberg

Robert J. Elisberg
Location
Los Angeles, California,
Bio
Robert J. Elisberg has been a regular contributor to the Huffington Post since 2006. His writing has appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, and Los Angeles Magazine, and served on the editorial board for the Writers Guild of America. He has contributed political writing to the anthology, "Clued in on Politics," 3rd edition (CQ Press). Born in Chicago, he attended Northwestern University and received his MFA from UCLA, where he was twice awarded the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. Most recently, he wrote the comedy-adventure screenplay, “The Wild Roses,” for Callahan Filmworks.

MY RECENT POSTS

Robert J. Elisberg's Links

New list
No links in this category.
Editor’s Pick
DECEMBER 21, 2010 11:27AM

The Real Nuclear Option

Rate: 6 Flag

 
After a while, you sometimes get tired of using the word "hypocritical" when writing about the Republican Party.  

But when John McCain (R-AZ) rails against an immigration bill that he himself proposed - when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) votes against creating a deficit reduction committee he earlier supported on the Senate floor six times  - when Republicans slam the Stimulus Bill, yet 100 of them ask privately for stimulus money - when John Kyl (R-AZ) decries earmarks only to request $200 million earmarks himself - when Republicans blast Miranda rights for the Christmas Day Bomber, despite the Bush Administration using Miranda rights with the Shoe Bomber, "hypocrisy" is the most natural word, at least in polite society.  

Yet one almost has to stop there with the near-endless examples because when you use a word too often, it borders on losing its meaning.

Eventually, it approaches laughable.  Like when Republicans whined about President Obama giving a speech to school kids about studying hard (!!), and George W. Bush had made the same presentation.  Or when Republicans complained that Barack Obama dared put his feet on the sacred desk in the Oval Office - which of course they didn't complain about when…well, you know…
   
   
 2010-12-20-bushfeetdesk.jpg
    
 
It goes on and on and endlessly on.  And sniping that "Democrats do it, too" is no answer - because a) that's mere misdirection trying to shift attention, and b) there is no equal record of Democrats being as egregiously, non-stop hypocritical as this.  Cherry-picking a handful of examples wouldn't change that.

And it wouldn't change that for another reason.  Because at a certain point, there comes a difference between simple hypocrisy, which is being harmful to yourself, and putting others at risk.

We do expect politicians to be hypocritical, on both sides of the aisle.  What we don't expect is for politicians to turn natural hypocrisy into policy, doing so at the expense of their sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

This isn't hyperbole.  We have on the record the Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  We have the upcoming Republican House Speaker John Boehner saying "I reject the word" compromise.  We have on the record a letter signed by every Republican senator promising to block all legislation until they get their way.

The result is a Republicans action that - were it the Democrats - the entire GOP machine would be going nuclear how Democrats were unpatriotic Communist agents who hated America and were weakening its defenses.

This goes beyond hypocrisy.  

Imagine if Democrats had voted to block supporting 9/11 first responders.  Imagine how Republicans would be ballistically invoking those "heroes on the front line defending America."  Rudy Giuliani's synapses might even overload.

Imagine now that that's not even the action.  The action actually is nuclear.  Literally.

It's that the Republican Party, taking ethereal hypocrisy to the level of abolishing their sworn responsibility, has decided it's better party politics to block the New START treaty than risk nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

That's what this bill is about, to be clear:  the protection of loose nuclear material in Russia from being stolen.

Imagine if it was the Democrats in Congress blocking a nuclear arms treaty, designed to keep bombs from our terrorist enemies.  Imagine the Republican outrage.

But it's more than even that.  The conservative Heritage Foundation suggested that there is disagreement on the treaty among experts.  "The list of experts is large," they wrote, identifying every opposing expert they could.  The Prague Project took up Heritage's challenge on how divided the "disagreement" actually was.
   
 
 2010-12-20-SupportGraph.png
   
 
That's 70 experts for, and just six against who the Heritage Foundation could name - five of whom were former Bush-appointees.  

Imagine if these experts were lined up that overwhelmingly against Democratic opposition.  Just imagine.

Former presidents almost never get involved with foreign policy.  But former President George H.W. Bush, spoke out in strong favor of the treaty.  This was that important.

How important, and how clear-cut its ramifications?  In an editorial, the Anchorage Daily News addressed the GOP's actions:

"Republicans blocked that [treaty] pre-election.  Really, if politicians can't agree on not obliterating the planet, what can they agree on?"

Imagine if that was about Democrats blocking ratification that could "obliterate the planet."  Imagine the hell that Republicans, that Fox News, that Rush Limbaugh, that all right-wing talk radio would be screaming.  Imagine Glenn Beck's tears.

Democrats are putting America at risk, they'd bellow!  Democrats are opening the door to a mushroom cloud in your backyard.  Democrats are weak on defense.  Democrats are weak on terrorism.  Democrats are putting politics before the nation's interest.

The previous treaty - signed by Ronald Reagan - ran out a full year ago.  For the past year there has been no treaty to protect the loose nukes.  Because Republicans are blocking it, for politics.

For the past eight months, this bill has been signed by President Obama, waiting for ratification by the Senate.  Because Republicans have been blocking it, for politics.

By all agreement, the new treaty improves upon the old one.  When Sen. John Kyle (R-AZ) demanded $12 billion more, President Obama added $14 billion.  And Sen. Kyle still is blocking the treaty, as are the rest of Senate Republicans. 

Over two weeks are arranged to debate the bill, but Republicans insist they need more time.  The previous bill was debated for less than two weeks.

And for all this, Republicans like to posture themselves as being strong on national defense.  On keeping you safe.

Except against nuclear weapons.

Except not supporting 9/11 first responders.

When politics get in the way.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve," said the Republican Minority Leader, " is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  

More important, it turns out, than nuclear obliteration.

This isn't hypocrisy.  This is sickness.  But America is the ones who could catch it.

Author tags:

start, republican party

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
And yet the much ballyhoo'd "liberal media" sits silently by with no intention of exposing the hypocrisy to the light of day. No we were taken out of the equation by the supreme court in 2000. The proof is right here in your words. The people are silent, the media is silent, there is no outrage over the injustice and barely a mention of the republicans holding the unemployed hostage in exchange for the extortion of an extension to the very tax cuts that bankrupt the nation. Even NPR has been co-opted. The threat to kill them off with budget cuts is the same thing as forcing them to cover and report news in the light that the government seeks. We no longer have free and protected press. Without one we are no different than the totalitarian states. We see from the ineffectiveness of the president even with his own party in firm control of the government that any effort to change the status quo is going to be quashed. We hear nonsense shouters broadly lying about things and having the lies spread by agents of the media who fear for their jobs if the fail to raise profits or offend those people who pay for advertising.
It is all so blatant now, why don't people see? Why don't they care?
Is it all about the divisive hatred employed by the parties in elections? Have we become so isolated by fear of our fellow citizens that we have lost the ability to see each other as people? Why does our society find that distrust is the safest course? I am full of questions but find few answers. I fear that the time for a reasonable change and a renewal of the spirit of community has passed. Will a free nation cease to exist until it has been wrested away from the fiends that have stolen it by force?
"Will a free nation cease to exist until it has been wrested away from the fiends that have stolen it by force?"

Now free elections are force? Interesting theory.

Obama negotiated START clumsily, which is particularly regrettable considering his alleged background as a lawyer.

If he'd had the smarts to remove from the treaty's preamble the noxious connection between offensive and defensive measures, this whole cockup could have been avoided.

The treaty will probably be ratified. But it's hardly a feather in Obama's cap. More like further evidence of his utter incapacity to lead this noble country.
Well said. The Republicans gave up every pretense of trying to govern with McConnell's comment about his top priority.
Robert- So can you quote something from the treaty that helps protect nuclear material is Russia form being stolen? And why do we need a treaty for Russia to get that under control. And why do we need a treaty with Russia that affects our defensive ability concerning the entire world. Russia is not the big concern anymore.

The reason people object is that there is always crap attached to the good. I for one am tired of that. I want only the good part of this treaty and not the bad.
How can it be OK for us to NOT be able to convert a nuke carrying missile into an anti-missile missile.

Why should we include this language? And why do the Russians want it? And please don't give me the old "compromise:" story. There is no need to compromise except in the minds of liberals who always support anything thet makes us weaker on international policy.
I hope the first nuke is a tactical one that lands in your back yard.
There is no hypocrisy in the Republican position - I think that became clear yesterday with Haley Barbour's statements on his remembrances of race relations in the south during his youth - we just have to learn to hear the dog whistles in their words.
PS-any treaty that has John Bolton (the first on the Heritage list) against it is alright by me.
Totally agree with you, Robert. The GOP suffers from insufferable hubris. However, as you can tell from some of the conservative comments here, rightwingers don't believe they're hypocrits because they simply don't acknowledge reality. After all, as Colbert said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias."
> I hope the first nuke is a tactical one that lands in your back yard.

For what it's worth, I'll take the high road here and not wish the same to you. In fact, I hope your life ahead is healthy and always safe.

I'll also take the detailed explanations of Colin Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sam Nunn, Brent Scowcroft, Warren Christopher, George Schultz and George H.W. Bush -- and 63 other actual experts -- that this Treaty is critically needed, rather than your insistence.

Robert J. Elisberg's Favorites

  1. facewall Joan Walsh

view all

Updates

  1. Joan Walsh

    Me on Open Salon