Senate should stop stalling on treaty

Could there be any reason, other than wanting the Obama administration to fail, in Republican opposition to the new nuclear weapons treaty that President Obama is urging the Senate to ratify? Work on this treaty spans at least two presidential administrations, and one can contend that it really dates back to the Kennedy administration, which negotiated the earliest of the nuclear weapons treaties with the Soviet Union. President Reagan, although never a "dove," also was a believer in nuclear arms treaties. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, put a great deal of effort into nuclear arms treaties.

So what is the Republicans' objection? The treaty would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States and would provide for verification procedures for both sides. Neither of the former Cold War superpowers now sees the other as an imminent threat, but a negotiated reduction in weaponry is beneficial to both sides.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate to ratify any treaty, which means Obama needs several Republicans to achieve the 67-senator approval margin. Some Republican leaders apparently believe that failing to gain ratification will make Obama look bad, but the opposite may be true: Opposing a treaty that is in the national interest will make Republican senators look like partisan snipers who are willing to sacrifice the national interest for their own partisan gain.