Several polls show the seat of the late Senator Edward Kennedy in jeopardy of being lost to conservative candidate Scott Brown (R) in next week’s special election.

A survey conducted by Public Policy Polling shows Republican Scott Brown actually leading Democrat Martha Coakley by one point. A second poll by the Boston Globe finds Brown and Coakley neck and neck among respondents who were “extremely interested” in the race.

Progressive Martha Coakley plans to take decisive action in these final days of the campaign to regain control of the race and win the election.

The polls are mixed. One poll showed Coakley ahead by eight points and the same Boston Globe poll listed above showed Coakley 17 points ahead of Brown, 53-36 if all potential voters are counted rather than those most interested.

Special election outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict, so any polls are of uncertain reliability. But it is no longer the proverbial “slam dunk” that a progressive will win Sen. Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts.

According to political pollster Andrew Smith, “If there ever was a time for a Republican to win here, now is the time.’’

A Republican victory in Massachusetts will have far-reaching consequences across the country, and could jeopardize passage of much legislation in 2010 and even ratification of nuclear arms treaties.

Republican voters, angry because of the struggling economy and the Obama Administration, are more motivated to turn out than Democrats.

“Iran Sanctions are Counterproductive,” an op-ed by our very own Laicie Olson, appeared yesterday in the East Texas Review.

Highlights posted below, or check out the complete article at ETR.

Rushing to pass unilateral gasoline sanctions may send the signal that the United States is no longer interested in engagement. If sanctions become necessary to increase international pressure on Iran, multilateral sanctions targeted at the Iranian leadership and Guard Corps would be more effective.

If Congress ultimately passes unilateral gasoline sanctions this year, Ahmadinejad would have a convenient excuse for delaying negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and continuing to stifle dissent. Are these counterproductive outcomes worth it just so a few members of Congress can go home and brag to their constituents that they are “doing something” about Iran?

Leadership isn’t about doing something. It’s about doing the right thing.

 

Brace yourselves for the news.

A major Administration report on nuclear weapons is delayed one month from February 1 until March 1.

Dear readers, I am sure you are shocked, shocked beyond belief to think that the Executive Branch, Congress, state legislatures, non-profit groups, students, authors or even ordinary citizens would ever fail to meet a deadline.

Pundits and experts are opining about the significance of this nuclear policy delay.  

It is said that the Administration is mired in bloody internal policy disputes over President Obama’s far-reaching nuclear weapons agenda.

Or the delay means that good guys (whomever they are, or perhaps even good gals, whomever they are) now have a better chance to prevail in the policy battles.

Or the nuclear weapons review will fizzle into deadlock.

Dear readers, it might just be possible that a delay is simply that, a delay. A failure to meet a deadline.  A bureaucracy that could not get its act together. An unprecedented act in Washington, DC.

Not since Claude Rains in the movie “Casablanca” discovered there was gambling in “Rick’s Café Américain” have people been so shocked.

So when is a delay just a delay?  Ask the former House Majority Leader from Sugerland, Texas, who dances with the stars.

 

Yesterday afternoon, Council Executive Director John Isaacs appeared on Seattle NPR alongside Los Angeles Times reporter Paul Richter and Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling to discuss nuclear reductions and the idea of a nuclear weapons free world.

Click here for the audio. Listen to the nuclear weapons segment beginning at 14:10, and John at 26:18.

Isaacs spoke about the need for nuclear reductions and the longer-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, and Schelling’s talk echoed arguments in his piece, “A World Without Nuclear Weapons?” from 2009 in Daedalus, which was featured in the New York Times’ blog on Tuesday.    

Click here to read the two-part commentary on Schelling’s article from Nukes of Hazard, the blog of our sister organization and research center, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

 

President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn longtime Chair of Senate Armed Services Committee.

These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design – the ultimate catastrophe.

In The Wall Street Journal and other venues, these conservative leaders argue for their dramatic reforms…

1. No first use of nuclear weapons

2. Immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals

3. Immediate elimination of short-range nukes

4. Eventual elimination of long-range nukes

5. Guarding nukes and nuclear materials

6. Phasing out production of highly enriched uranium

7. Enhanced verification and enforcement procedures

8. Bringing into force the universal Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty to monitor and discourage cheating

Additional points about nuclear weapons

a. The US does not need to test nukes to maintain its current arsenal

b. The US and Russia own 95% of the world’s nukes and are cooperating in guarding inventories

c. The US and Russia have reduced their ICBM nukes to 2000 and are now negotiating further reductions to about 1600.

d. The US has not tested nukes since September 23, 1992, when Bush senior was president

e. For the CTBT treaty to go into effect, 44 specified countries with nuclear capacity must ratify. Of those countries, the following have not ratified: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and USA.

During President Clinton’s administration, the CTBT was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats. Henry Kissinger et al should be helpful in this effort.

Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.

Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Others have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.