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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Certain folks are threatened by anybody who doesn't fall within their perception of what 'normal' people 'should' be like, even if whatever difference there may be is blatantly not the fault of the people in question or in many cases even anybody in particular except maybe God. This has always been so.

Having said that, there actually are reasonable Republican voices on this issue, so the side of the devils in this particular war fortunately lacks a united front.

[TJ in Oregon]

This article gives a clearer explanation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, I still don't know whether the treaty would actually do this or if it's simply over-reacting, but then again we might never know unless/until the treaty is enacted. Mr. Milbank decided it would be more worthwhile to demonize Lee and Santorum than address the issue, as have most of the posts in this thread.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, I would question the need for the treaty.

Second, I would much rather let a US Court make determinations about what constitutes "reasonable accommodation," that I would an international body. 

There is a separate optional codicil that I think the US has not signed onto to put an international body in charge of reviewing compliance.  So all that would be at stake if the treaty were ratified would be our internal laws, which means this really should not be something subjected to a treaty in the first place.

[nclib]

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?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[t_host1]

What on earth is wrong with these people? Are they secret Democrat double agents? Why would anyone oppose something like this?? They should be hit with sticks.

?Are you aware that Care to Obama eliminates families/individuals expensing medical cost over $2,500 for special needs children – that’s autism, birth defects and so… epileptic medicines can run $2000 a month.

[Simfan34]

What on earth is wrong with these people? Are they secret Democrat double agents? Why would anyone oppose something like this?? They should be hit with sticks.

?Are you aware that Care to Obama eliminates families/individuals expensing medical cost over $2,500 for special needs children – that’s autism, birth defects and so… epileptic medicines can run $2000 a month.

This becomes a lot less amusing when you're expected to respond to it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Saxby Chambliss was ahead of the curve by 10 years here. Clearly Max Cleland needs to pull himself up by his own bootstraps.

[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...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Treaties have the full force of law in the US.  It makes sense to be wary of them when they are all about domestic policy, just as it makes sense to consider carefully the implications of a constitutional amendment that would impact domestic policy.
Treaties serve a useful purpose for relations between nations and respecting human rights in conflict situations. In this case, the countries that really need to respect the rights of people within their borders are just going to sign it and ignore it, as we've seen with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Meanwhile, the US is capable on its own to make laws protecting the disabled, apart from any treaty.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Treaties have the full force of law in the US.  It makes sense to be wary of them when they are all about domestic policy, just as it makes sense to consider carefully the implications of a constitutional amendment that would impact domestic policy.
Treaties serve a useful purpose for relations between nations and respecting human rights in conflict situations. In this case, the countries that really need to respect the rights of people within their borders are just going to sign it and ignore it, as we've seen with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Meanwhile, the US is capable on its own to make laws protecting the disabled, apart from any treaty.

^^^ This

Plus I wouldn't trust the UN to operate a lemonade stand.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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?

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Inks still has an idealistic view of his party. That's why he has said ludicrous things in the past, like his assertions that Republicans aren't climate change deniers, that they aren't anti-intellectuals or that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would pass with lots of Republican votes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

What a hackish viewpoint... and that's why this forum is going down the sh**tter... you have people like me who criticize Democrats when they're wrong but also criticize Republicans when they're being stupid hacks.

But where are the Democrats on this site who say it's absured to say that Republicans don't have a noble motivation for what they do?  When Michelle Bachman makes her comments about representatives having unAmerican views, she's pounced on for assuming bad faith about her colleagues, as she should be, but when the liberals on this site do it, the Republicans who defend their party get laughed at like we're being ridiculous.

Offer some proof that the GOP genuinely has bad hearts and has malicious motivations for what they do.  Or, is it possible that the Senators opposing this are genuinely concerned about sacrificing American soverignty for UN control?  It's quite clearly not about opposing rights for disabilities, since the article even points out that the law would require basically no changes and would bring the rest of the world up to the standards of the ADA.

So, I'm not sure how you can assume that the Senators have bad faith and are doing this because the disabled don't benefit them.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks still has an idealistic view of his party. That's why he has said ludicrous things in the past, like his assertions that Republicans aren't climate change deniers, that they aren't anti-intellectuals or that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would pass with lots of Republican votes.

I never said that they weren't climate change deniers, and I never said that DADT repeal would pass with "lots of Republican" votes.  I said I thought there were enough Republican votes in one of the houses (I believe the Senate, but I'm not sure), that it would've passed.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And px, you're hardly the person to lecture me about ludicrous statements.  I'm not the one who posts fake quotes and every article I find that bashes the opposite party.

Do we really need a best of list? ...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138772.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157156.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=135719.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132100.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125930.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138117.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132238.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138379.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130290.0

[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?

[Landslide Lyndon]

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?

Arlen Specter said that Republicans decided after the 2008 election that their strategy would be to oppose and obstruct everything Obama proposed. I guess that's the proof Inks wants to accept what has been obvious to all of us.

[DC Al Fine]

Treaties have the full force of law in the US.  It makes sense to be wary of them when they are all about domestic policy, just as it makes sense to consider carefully the implications of a constitutional amendment that would impact domestic policy.
Treaties serve a useful purpose for relations between nations and respecting human rights in conflict situations. In this case, the countries that really need to respect the rights of people within their borders are just going to sign it and ignore it, as we've seen with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Meanwhile, the US is capable on its own to make laws protecting the disabled, apart from any treaty.

^^^ This

Plus I wouldn't trust the UN to operate a lemonade stand.

[anvi]

An optional protocol in a UN treaty of this kind does nothing whatsoever to threaten national sovereignty, ours or anyone else's.  What they do is set up a UN committee that is in charge of receiving scheduled reports from member states as well as receiving complaints.  The committee investigates the complaints, and if they have standing and are judged valid, inform the member states about them, allows the member states to respond to the complaints, and then gives the committee the option of making appropriate recommendations to the member states if reports are not file or if complaints have standing and are judged valid.  Any member state even has the option of rejecting the recommendations.  I read through the entire text of the "Enable" Optional protocol this morning, and there is nothing in it that would trump or contravene the laws of the United States.  Nothing.  If you don't believe me, read it yourselves.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

These guys in the Senate and who used to be there are funny.  They would probably all claim that they believe in certain standards for the equitable treatment of disabled people.  If pressed, they'd probably concede that such standards constitute basic human rights.  The laws now existing in their country already meet the standards of an international body that is asking them to support those values and statutes on an international stage.  But, when the international body asks for their support in advocating and achieving these standards around the world, they want to decline because they don't want anyone to "force" them to believe and do the things they already do--even though we're in fact not being forced to do anything.

Whatever.  If these guys in the Senate and who used to belong to it want this ratification blocked, then they can block it.  But don't tell me it's out of genuine concern for national sovereignty, because that claim is baseless.    

And I wouldn't trust a number of posters above to operate a lemonade stand...so there.