GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge

[Franzl]

This could be from the Onion.

[Franzl]

Good for them. Those crippled and blind fellows are prominent members of the 47% crowd. They should finally stand up and take personal responsibility for their lives. Not being able to see and walk are not excuses for these moochers.  

Indeed, we don't need such parasites in real America mooching off the government.

I mean, they could start their own business or something, but what do they do? They play the disabled card and become dependent on government. Is it surprising America is going downhill when people would rather collect welfare checks than work for a living?

[Franzl]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

Because the disabled don't benefit them or their interests.

You really need to realize what your party has become and whar kind of people belong to it. They don't (usually) have any noble motivation...

[Franzl]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

Because the disabled don't benefit them or their interests.

You really need to realize what your party has become and whar kind of people belong to it. They don't (usually) have any noble motivation...

That's an awfully cynical view...

One can hardly come to a different conclusion.

[Franzl]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

Because the disabled don't benefit them or their interests.

You really need to realize what your party has become and whar kind of people belong to it. They don't (usually) have any noble motivation...

That's an awfully cynical view...

One can hardly come to a different conclusion.

You do realize that many conservatives have that same view of Democrats?

I don't think we should start a debate about which party is better connected to reality.

[Franzl]

Inks, do you seriously claim Republicans are working and debating in good faith? Because virtually everything that has happened since Obama took office has proved the opposite.

The Republicans that defend every absurdity the GOP comes up with ARE ridiculous. And even if you criticize individual actions, it doesn't have any consequence as you'll still vote for the nutters.

The American "parties" are not comparable in their idiocy and trying to relativize everything "call out both sides...both sides do it", etc. is just a cheap...not to mention moderate hero...way of trying to justify support for people you know are ridiculous.

[Franzl]

Inks, do you seriously claim Republicans are working and debating in good faith? Because virtually everything that has happened since Obama took office has proved the opposite.

The Republicans that defend every absurdity the GOP comes up with ARE ridiculous. And even if you criticize individual actions, it doesn't have any consequence as you'll still vote for the nutters.

The American "parties" are not comparable in their idiocy and trying to relativize everything "call out both sides...both sides do it", etc. is just a cheap...not to mention moderate hero...way of trying to justify support for people you know are ridiculous.

Is some of it done to be obstructionists to Obama's policies? Absolutely.  But for the most part, I still think people on both sides do their jobs in an attempt to help the country.

I'd love for you to prove to me that those opposing this bill are acting in bad faith...

How am I supposed to "prove" it?

[Franzl]

I can't prove the claim because it's not actually verifiable. (Except for statements from Republicans that have indicated that their main priority was to "make Obama a one term President", which strongly support my suspicion.)

This isn't something you can "prove", unless you know of mind reading technology I am unaware of. (Although Georgia Republicans seem to believe something similar exists, and that the President is using it. But that's right, "no party has a monopoly on absurdity...both sides make outrageous claims", I know.)

[Franzl]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

[Franzl]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

There was nothing hateful about this.

I'm reasonably sure you'd defend almost anything (or at least claim it was a reasonable, well motivated position you happened to disagree with). I can only imagine if it were 1964 and Barry Goldwater were running for President...

[Franzl]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

There was nothing hateful about this.

I'm reasonably sure you'd defend almost anything (or at least claim it was a reasonable, well motivated position you happened to disagree with). I can only imagine if it were 1964 and Barry Goldwater were running for President...

Defend almost anything?  I've criticized the party on their healthcare stance, the filibuster (both sides on that issue), gerrymandering, Pete Hoekstra, exclusion of the libertarian wing of the party, and the stance on Cap-and-Trade, just to name a few.

Yes, and you believe all of those positions are the result of well intentioned, productive debate about their merits. You still support these people. That's the point. ("Well yes, I do like Civil Rights...Goldwater is wrong about that. I'm still voting for him, of course.")

[Franzl]

So Franzl is admitting he believes Santorum's position on this is motivated by hate of his own daughter? Yikes. From one ridiculous act to another extreme.

No, I'm not arguing Santorum hates disabled people. I am arguing that Republicans apparently have no problem throwing (insert whatever: disabled, poor people, etc.) under the bus for stupid and egotistical reasons.

I don't think Barry Goldwater was personally racist , but same thing applies. Opposing the CRA was racist policy, whatever those people personally thought.

[Franzl]

So you don't think there is any justifiable ideological reason for opposing this that wouldn't count as "throwing the disabled under the bus?" Is Santorum throwing his disabled daughter under the bus?

I don't think there is any legitimate reason to oppose this treaty. And if something is beneficial to a certain disadvantaged group and you oppose it without good reasons, you're sacrificing their interests for....stupid reasons (at best).

Hate was a strong, perhaps inappropriate word to apply to this debate...but I'm legitimately upset that libertarian conspiracy theories and Republican obstructionism have blocked something that should be totally uncontroversial.

[Franzl]

Still wondering if you think Santorum's strong opposition to this is an example of "throwing his daughter under the bus."  

Not any more or less than opposing gay marriage if you have a gay daughter.

He opposes something that would further advance his daughter's interests (without any legitimate reason). So to give a clear answer : yes.

[Franzl]

Speaking for myself, I don't believe this is a matter of personal hatred or any unified party ideology.  Santorum obviously does not hate his daughter nor other disabled people, and there are Republican Senators that voted in favor of ratification.  I do think that the concerns about the treaty somehow trumping U.S. law or being automatically enforceable in American courts are, given the specifics of the treaty and recent American jurisprudence, completely unwarranted.  But I don't believe the opposition is rooted either in personal animus of any kind, nor in any uniform party ideology.

Well what other motives are there? I mean, these are members of the United States Senate, many of them lawyers. One would think that they know and understand what the legal implications are. And if they do know (I mean, even John McCain voted in favor.), what reasonable explanation can be given for their position?

[Franzl]

But I don't really think the opposition to it is motivated by anything personal, and I don't think the ideology that led to the opposition is representative of the GOP's views as a whole.   

Nothing personal in the sense that they aren't actively trying to do their best to work against the interests of the disabled, but it certainly seems like they're willing to sacrifice them.

It's basically saying: "We have this theoretical problem with the way this treaty is worded, because it would lead to (insert random libertarian conspiracy)".

Is it not the logical conclusion that they (a majority of the Republican Senate Caucus) apparently care more about a triviality than the rights of the disabled?

Just as I doubt Republicans really sit there and think: "What can I do to hurt poor people the most today?". It's just that they support policies that are in the interest of the people they largely represent and that are in conflict to what is in the economic interest of the vast majority of normal people. It's not unfair to claim they are "fighting" against these people when their policies harm them....even if it's not perhaps their direct intent.

[Franzl]

So is Santorum just not aware of the legal reality...just ignorance instead of malice? I mean this as a serious question Phil: Why is he against it really? I think he has a JD?

[Franzl]

You tell me - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/05/santorum-un-disabilities-treaty-would-ve-had-bureaucrats-unseat-parents.html

Doesn't sound like ignorance to me.

He makes nice sounding claims, but I don't see how one can come to his conclusions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This particularly makes no sense. Under the direction of the UN? Really?

[Franzl]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

Why hasn't it been subsequently ratified.....we've had libs leading the Senate more than long enough to get it done, anvi?   I guess what I'm objecting to hear is the title of the thread.....both parties are to blame.

All Democrats voted in favor of the treaty, not to mention that Democrats have not had 67 seats in the Senate at any time in recent history.

[Franzl]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

Why hasn't it been subsequently ratified.....we've had libs leading the Senate more than long enough to get it done, anvi?   I guess what I'm objecting to hear is the title of the thread.....both parties are to blame.

All Democrats voted in favor of the treaty, not to mention that Democrats have not had 67 seats in the Senate at any time in recent history.

When?  Yes, I know they haven't had that many seats but surely in modern times there have been enough moderate pubs to go along.........oh well.

Here's a list of who voted for and against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00219

[Franzl]

Very interesting.......thanks, Franzl.

No problem, my (not all that grumpy) friend

[Franzl]

Well Bob Dole is probably a Communist anyway using modern Tea Party definitions.....so I doubt his opinion is all that relevant.

[Franzl]

I watched some of the Senate debate on this. Both sides were pretty unconvincing and even bizarre in their arguments.  Much of the opponent's arguments were not wanting to be criticized by other more hypocritical signatories.  The proponents kept coming back to this idea that it would somehow ensure that disabled vets would be treated well when they travel.  A treaty like this isn't going to ensure anything like that because even if it makes a significant difference it's going to be applied unevenly.  The big problem disabled people face around the world is how disabilities can lead to extreme poverty, but whether this treaty might make any difference there wasn't discussed (at least from what I saw).

Will the treaty go ahead among the other countries without the US signing on?

This doesn't surprise me. American political debates don't usually focus on the larger issues in.

You can sell anything better if you talk about the veterans, or something else that average Americans actually care about.

Think about the (kind of) controversy about E15 fuel. What arguments are being used against it for the most part?

[Franzl]

Precisely. Not that they're in any way irrelevant, but there is another perspective that seems rather important that nobody in the US debate seems to even mention.