Council for a Livable World’s 2010 Senate Election Analysis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 3, 2010
CONTACT:
Bridget Nolan , Outreach Coordinator, 202.546.0795, ext. 2113, bnolan@clw.org

Washington, D.C. –Council for a Livable World released its 2010 Senate election analysis today, stating that the outcome of yesterday’s election has created a Congress that will most likely be more dysfunctional over the next two years than it has been over the past two years.

However, Executive Director of Council for a Livable World John Isaacs noted, “In the wreckage of the election, there are few shards of hope. The election issues focused on the economy, jobs and federal budget deficit. Virtually no attention was paid to national security issues.�

Council for a Livable World is an advocacy group founded in 1962 that has focused on weapons of mass destruction. It also supports and raises funds for candidates for Congress.

Isaacs pointed out that most candidates simply avoided national security issues. When asked whether the Tea Party had a foreign policy platform, former U.S. Representative and Freedom Works founder Dick Armey admitted: “I don’t think so.�

That means, added Isaacs, “there is no election consensus against further nuclear weapons reductions, expanded efforts to safeguard nuclear weapons and materials, stemming the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea or the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.�

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.� Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) argued: “This is not a time for compromise.�

“With such views, Congress is unlikely to come to an agreement on many of the important issues facing the country.� Isaacs added.

Congress will be meeting in a post-election session in the coming weeks and so far the agenda is unclear. Isaacs stressed, “We hope that in the next coming weeks, the Senate will give its advice and consent to the New START nuclear reductions treaty. That would be one way to advance American national security interests in what will be a significantly difficult political environment.�

The New START nuclear reductions treaty requires modest reductions in the deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia and restores an essential means of monitoring and verifying each side’s nuclear forces that has been absent since the START I treaty expired on December 5, 2009.