I think that Fred Kaplan pretty much said it all about Mitt Romney's incompetent WaPo op-ed on the New START treaty, but others continue to weigh in.
Peter Baker calls the op-ed "a blistering attack" but doesn't take note of its extreme weaknesses. And he may be right. Making sense may no longer be required for political traction, particularly when reporters like Baker can't be bothered to look for sense.
Baker does note that Senator Richard Lugar (R, IN) has expressed support for the treaty. Jeffrey Lewis reports a response from Lugar. Romney complains that New START doesn't address tactical nuclear weapons, but Lugar points out that if New START isn't ratified, we can forget about the Russians being willing to negotiate on tactical nukes.
John Isaacs, at the Council for a Liveable World, points out that Romney has aligned himself with the John Birch Society, which opposes the treaty. OTOH, James Schlesinger, generally on the hawkish side of things, supports it.
Daniel Drezner and Kevin Drum both note that foreign policy "mandarins," both Republican and Democratic, support New START and worry that it still won't pass because eight Republicans must vote for it, and they may no longer pay attention to those "mandarins" but will stick with their obstructionist program.