This article makes no sense on a number of levels.
This is all this liberal has to say about Ronald Reagan when discussing the end of an establishment?
"Ronald Reagan entered office by bringing on board a host of movement conservatives, but ended up relying on his cautious secretary of state, George Shultz, and winding down the Cold War, much to the consternation of the true believers. The right felt, once again, that it had been sold out by its own leadership."
I remember the Liberals going nuts over what Reagan was saying to the Commies. I don't remember any consternation with "true believers" and I have no idea who they are? If I am one of them, I am a conservative, then I don't remember being sold out by Reagan, but felt proud when that wall fell. I wanted the defeat of communism, as it's responsible for over 100 million dead and counting.
There is also no specifics in the article on Mitt's actual opinion on the START Treaty. Specifically Mitt's first point:
"New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia."
Sounds like a conservative position to me and one that Ike/Reagan/Bush/Bush would have.
The author is incoherent in his points and has no logical arguments to support his conclusion. Of course it is a left-wing rag, which he probably got his talking points from Journolist.
Of course facts usually get in the way of these authors.