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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

There was nothing hateful about this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Jesus, is Santorum the only one who doesn't know he's going to hell?

Tolerance from the left?

[Zioneer]

Yet another reason why I despise Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee.

[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...

[memphis]

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...

And yet Inks is easily one of the best behaved poster here. Never an unkind word from him on anybody. No insane rants from the GOP War on Reality. Not really sure how it can be that Inks, at least based on his posted PM scores, is a far right Republican.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[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.")

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[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.

[Keystone Phil]

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?

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Romney clearly stated that the people who live on welfare (ergo those on disability pensions too) are moochers and Republicans shouldn't care about them.

So please Franzl, stop besmirching the reputation of good and honest people like Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell. They don't hate disabled people, it's just a matter of fiscal responsibility and protecting the interests of makers from the unwashed masses of takers.

[Keystone Phil]

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

[anvi]

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.

[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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

This is the most reasonable post I've seen in a long time

[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?

[anvi]

Oh, I think the concerns are ideological in nature.  I don't think the ideological commitments that inform these concerns are uniform across the GOP, since, as you note, McCain voted in favor, as did several others.  I think the Senators who voted against probably just have a problem with UN treaties that might involve complaints being brought against the U.S. on an international stage and they don't want U.S. law to be judged in the visible light of an international body.  Of course, as Ernest pointed out above, some of them might also be--quite mistakenly--making too much about certain clauses in the treaty containing language like "binding," even though there is no real domestic legal force to such language.  Once again, I don't believe any of these things are reasonable, and, as a disabled person, I'm offended by the outcome.  The treaty offered the U.S. the opportunity to stand up for disabled people around the world in the face of discrimination where there were no threats to American legal sovereignty at all.  The message to the world is: "we'll take care of our own disabled people, and if you're a disabled person in the rest of the world, good luck."  I think that's really cr*p.  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.    

[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.

[anvi]

I certainly agree that the outcome is inimical to the interests of disabled people around the world, and that's what bothers me most about this.  I don't, however, think the Senators that opposed believe that they were doing so on the basis of something trivial.  I think their whole conception of national sovereignty was somehow at stake in the matter.  That said, I would argue that their conception of what national sovereignty is is quite shallow--it's more concerned with how we look rather than what we actually do.  But it's pretty easy to get politically whaled on in the public eye for opposing an international treaty defending the rights of the disabled, so I don't think politicians would be motivated to to it over what they themselves believed to be a triviality.

[Brittain33]

Those that say Rick Santorum is waging a War on the Disabled should be really ashamed of themselves.

Yes, let's not forget who's the real victim in this whole fight...

[Keystone Phil]

Those that say Rick Santorum is waging a War on the Disabled should be really ashamed of themselves.

Yes, let's not forget who's the real victim in this whole fight...

No, the real victims are the people you want to use as props to, yet again, launch a ridiculous attack on someone you dislike.

"Hateful" Rick Santorum actually just noted that the UN was "well intentioned." Doesn't sound too conspiratorial/hateful to me. That's more than can be said about most of the people here...

[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?

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[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?