this may actually be a bad idea from a liberal internationalist
perspective. Let McCain defend his opposition to LoS in the
general and then we can pass it afterwards. Passing it now
deprives us of an issue

I'll disagree with both Scott and pt on their comments on the LOST:

First: I think there is little downside to President Bush and/or the Republicans in the upcoming Presidential campaign whether the LOS Treaty is ratified or not. If the Senate kills it: well, no loss to them, and the issue gets put off til the next Congress. If the Senate ratifies it, and Bush signs on to it: it will most likely be forgotten as an issue: the vast majority of the American public knows little and cares less about grandiose international treaties like the UNCLOS. If the Senate ratfies it, and Bush manages to kill or sidetrack it: well, still no loss to them; it's still the next Congress's problem to deal with.

I think the one thing supporters of US ratification of the UNCLOS would want to avoid at any cost is having the Treaty become an issue in the general election. Regardless of the realities; as long as the opposition can frame the LOS debate as a matter of constraints on "American sovereignity", its opponents can (and almost certainly will) paint its supporters as vaguely "un-American" (the cliches will be familiar) - reminiscent (although probably stronger) of the attacks on John Kerry's purported "global test" in 2004.

Sad to say, but in this upcoming election - especially with John McCain as the GOP nominee - the desperate Republicans are going to do their best to insure that belligerent jingoistic nationalism will be a major theme of the campaign. And to make anything connected (however loosely) with the hated UN a prime talking-point.

ADD: Yep, the WN's new captcha check sucks: majorly. Can anything be done about this?