Look back even 5 years ago, Lugar was ranking member of the SFRC and he had substantial leverage with many senior Republicans. Without his support, Kerry's excellent committee work and defense on the floor of the Senate of the START treaty, respected even by some like Mccain who voted against it, would likely have been in vain. Lugar's strong support is what ultimately drove the Republicans who voted for it to do so. Ex- Senator Lugar strongly supports the deal and wrote an op-ed saying so with Sam Nunn -- important as their names Nunn/Lugar are synonymous with the effort to secure nuclear material that could otherwise go astray. (Note Nunn was as conservative a Democrat as you could find -- and he also supports this)
Consider that this also had the support of ex Senator John Warner, who had shaire the Armed Services Committee before he opted not to run for re-election in 2006. (Here, he is better than his Democratic replacement, Webb. who thankfully was too bored or lazy to run for re-election.) Warner was also a person thought to have some power in moving his fellow Republicans - as was Chuck Hagel, who also opted not to run for re-election. (I don't know what Olympia Snowe would have done.)
Five years ago, this same deal would have had some Republican support and likely few Democrats would have had any trouble supporting it. Consider this won the UNANIMOUS support of the UN security council and led to international (except Israel) applause. It is trite to say "no deal is perfect", but it is telling how many Democrats had to say just that even while supporting it. THAT is a measure of the power of Netanyahu and AIPAC. Consider how few Democrats actually lavished either much praise or congratulations to Secretary Kerry or President Obama for what was a successful conclusion to an immensely important effort that was never considered to have much chance of success. Obama was a profile in courage for putting his prestige behind this and Kerry did an incredible job. That there was almost no jubilation showed that starting long before the last push to get a deal, there were many in this country actually hoping for failure. I suspect this included many Democrats, hoping to avoid a choice between Obama and their President. (Forget what was better for peace, the US, or the world)
It is possible that what we are seeing is mostly a measure of the rightward change in the Republican party even in the last 5 years -- which has led to NO Republican having the guts to challenge the party's position on this -- even as many of their former National security experts support it. It might also be a measure of their desire to get AIPAC support in their races, even as the majority of American Jews continue to support Democrats.
Fortunately for us, the fight AIPAC and Netanyahu had to win to succeed was JUST for Democratic support. So, far, they have failed to get anyone - other than Schumer, who they always had (and who might wonder if this impacts his perceived ability to influence his peers) and Menendez, who is under indictment and very bad on both Cuba and Iran. If that is all, this will be an incredible defeat for AIPAC.
Meanwhile, it has driven a wedge through the American Jewish community like I never saw before. There already was a rejection among young Jews of the idea that they should speak in just one voice on Israel -something once accepted, even though that voice was AIPAC's and it backed Likud, even when they were out of power. This may accelerate that. One professor who spoke to our synagogue on his research on this spoke of how this actually made the American Jewish diaspora more typical -- having more contact with Israel and Israelis - and lining up with many diverse parties in Israel.
= new reply since forum marked as read