Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

RIP Ben Bradlee

RIP Ben Bradlee
One of our nation's best.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Rick Santorum THRILLED Vote in Support of Disabled in UN Defeated

The [bad] jokes keep writing themselves, my friends. 

 As the GOP continues to look inward to try to discover why they were rejected in what they believed was a "gimme" election, along comes Little Ricky Santorum to give us a whoppingly crude illustration on why the Republican brand is in trouble: 

 "[Santorum] has been on a crusade against a dangerous attempt by the United Nations to help disabled people around the world. This week, he won! The Senate refused to ratify a U.N. treaty on the subject. The vote, which fell five short of the necessary two-thirds majority, came right after 89-year-old Bob Dole, the former Republican leader and disabled war veteran, was wheeled into the chamber to urge passage. 

 “We did it,” Santorum tweeted in triumph." --NYTimes

 Yes. He really tweeted that. 

 But wait, it gets worse, [if anyone can imagine anything worse than what Santorum did--but this is, afterall, the Teapublican Party--the Party of NO!:

 "WASHINGTON — Former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas sat slightly slumped in his wheelchair on the Senate floor on Tuesday, staring intently as Senator John Kerry gave his most impassioned speech all year, in defense of a United Nations treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities. 

 Senators from both parties went to greet Mr. Dole, leaning in to hear his wispy reply, as he sat in support of the treaty, which would require that people with disabilities have the same general rights as those without disabilities. Several members took the unusual step of voting aye while seated at their desks, out of respect for Mr. Dole, 89, a Republican who was the majority leader. Then, after Mr. Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, rolled him off the floor, Republicans quietly voted down the treaty that the ailing Mr. Dole, recently released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, so longed to see passed." 

 [skip] 

 "Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, his voice rising as senator after senator moved slowly into the chamber, rejected the concerns of Republicans and made a moral argument for approval of the treaty. 

 Mr. Dole, he said, had not come to the Senate floor 'to advocate for the United Nations.' 'He is here because he wants to know that other countries will come to treat the disabled as we do,' he added. 

Approval of the treaty, Mr. Kerry said, would demonstrate that “what we do here in the United States Senate matters.” He added, 'Don’t let Senator Bob Dole down.'”  --NYTimes

UPDATE: To emphasize the fact that the treaty was NON-BINDING:

 "Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the U.N. committee recommendations would be nonbinding, prompting Lee to ask, “If this does nothing, then why would we ratify it?” Kerry countered that the treaty would allow the United States to serve on the committee to advocate for the rights of U.S. veterans and citizens living or traveling abroad. 

 “I have not said it does nothing,” Kerry said. “I said it does not change U.S. law; that is different from saying it doesn’t do anything. 

If it didn’t do anything I wouldn’t be here, nor would President Bush have signed it.”  




The Teapublicans, in their irrational paranoia, voted down a measure which we initiated here in our own country, made colossal fools of themselves, and shamed America. 

 The final vote was 61-38 vote. 

All the nay votes were Republican. 

 REPUBLICANS 61 -- DISABLED AROUND THE WORLD -- 0 

 I imagine they're all proud of themselves.





46 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Santorum aside, you do realize this vote was to ratify as UN treaty, making it the law of the United States, right?

It was not a defeat for the "disabled around the world." The treaty has passed at the UN and has been adopted by over 150 countries around the world.

But the larger question is, what are we not doing for the disabled in this country that would be corrected by adopting this treaty?

And if we are negligent in some area, we can address it with US law.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Some Republicans, including Senator John McCain, for example, were passionately in favor of ratifying this treaty. But many other Republicans, by and large conservatives, hate the United Nations, they don't trust the United Nations. They don't want international law, in their words, to interfere with domestic laws here in the United States, whether federal laws, state, or local laws.

Santorum said he didn't want international lawyers and foreign countries telling him or telling local officials what they can or cannot do as far as treatment for his daughter. And that was his reason in convincing a lot of Republicans to reject the treaty.

This was a non-binding treaty; Santorums and the rest of the Teapublicans' fears are unfounded.


The counter-argument is we want to bring – by ratifying this treaty-- the rest of the world up to the U.S. standards but that obviously didn't resonate, at least not enough, to get the Republicans to vote in favor of the treaty.

The treaty was negotiated and first signed under former President George W. Bush, a conservative, and signed again by Pres. Obama in 2009. At least 153 other countries have signed it.

IMHO, the vote made the Teapublicans look mean-spirited to the world and especially to families with disabled relatives

It was a dumb, unnecessary move, but typical of where the GOP is today.

skudrunner said...

It was a symbolic jester that, like most things with the UN, has no real meaning or significance.

I don't see why the republicans voted against it because it would have changed nothing but gives more ammunition to the democrats.

The GOP is determined to fade into oblivion and they are doing a great job of accomplishing it.

BB-Idaho said...

Bob Dole, wounded WWII combat vet, is among the last of the Greatest
Generation and clearly the last of
the real Republicans....

Silverfiddle said...

"This was a non-binding treaty"

"The counter-argument is we want to bring – by ratifying this treaty-- the rest of the world up to the U.S. standards..."

Does anyone else besides me see the disconnect?

More importantly, who follows the US lead anymore, and who allows us to bring them "up to our standards?"

Slavery still goes on in Northern Africa and the Middle East, human trafficking is going strong, and women still can't drive in many countries...

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear Gawd, Silverfiddle!

Why do you defend the indefensible?

Is there nothing the GOP does that you won't defend or rationalize?

And you think liberals are hopelessly partisan?

This vote was a no-brainer; and as skudrunner explained, it gave the Dems and now the rest of the rational world more evidence of how crazy and deranged the extreme wing of the GOP has become--the extreme wing that has taken over the party and obviously, you.

Jerry Critter said...

This is simply another example of why the American people, all of them, are rejecting the republican party.

Anonymous said...

There is fear of real things
Then there is Republican made fear

The treaty would mean Americans with disabilities would not be discriminated against in other countries. Like American soldiers abroad, but we know how SF treats American soldiers, like shit

Gee, lets not set world standards similar to American standards just because they are the best in the world.

Like the effects of world trade, lets lower ourselves to their sub-standards, instead of raising them to our standards, thus leveling the playing field.

Republicans cry of fear: "Raising standards around the world to meet the best standards (American standards) in the world, will kill America!"

Some4body shoot "chicken little" he's been crying fake foul for decades now.

Silverfiddle said...

When passing a non-binding, meaningless treaty that dictators, tyrants and torturers will not follow is how a party has to curry favor with the electorate, we know we're in trouble.

More big government! Our big government isn't big enough, so let's invite in US Poobah's to pile even more crap on us!

Need more cowbell!

Anonymous said...

silverfizzle keeps dancing to the tune of teh crazies...it's a two- note tune...big gummit...big gummit...fear...fear...fear...lucky for most of us...he's a silly minority...the world laugs at...

Silverfiddle said...

So Shaw, explain to us how the US voting to join this treaty would have made anything better?

Or, please explain how this was a "defeat for the disabled around the world."

Do you really believe there are countries kicking people in wheelchairs over cliffs, republican-style, but who will poke their ignorant heads up and repent because the US signed a UN treaty that tells them to?

Talk about naive...

Anonymous said...

"that dictators, tyrants and torturers will not follow"

Decent people and leaders of the world will follow, making the world just a little better

Should we concern ourselves with making policy that bad guys will follow?

Typical LOSER strategy from a LOSER Republican

Like Citicorp, SF must be cheering for more layoffs, so more corporations can make more profit. No matter more Americans become unemployed and lose their homes.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Normally, SF, people who travel abroad don't visit barbarous countries that deal in slavery or are lawless, like Somalia. This was a vote to encourage decent people in countries to treat the disabled with dignity and consideration, as our laws in this country do.

Perhaps it was a symbolic vote, and the inconsiderate, fearful Teapublicans tarnished the US's reputation by turning it into a political prop to do what? Show the world how crazy they are?


Silverfiddle said...

So you really think "decent" countries need us to show them the way?

Symbolism over substance: The liberal credo.

Shaw Kenawe said...

selfishness over national good: The conservative credo

Silverfiddle said...

Lots of hyperventilating over this...

Let's get back to reality.

Where exactly is the GOP selfishness in this vote, and what 'national good' has been blocked?

Anonymous said...

shaw...stop arguing with silverfizzle...remember...these people are cwAAAAAAzy!..slowly close the door...and tip-toe away...they'll go find someone else's blog to troll...really...you can't reason with them...he's like a dog on a bone...only with foaming spittle around his teeth.........

billy pilgrim said...

i thought the democrats controlled the senate?

skudrunner said...

"i thought the democrats controlled the senate?"

They do but not a super majority which is required for meaningless legislation like this bill or the disaster AKA obamacare.

slimy reid is trying to get rid of the filibusterer so the dems will have god like powers without any controls. Kind of like the first two years of the obama mistake.

LOL Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON -- The House voted on Wednesday to strike the word "lunatic" from all federal laws and only one lawmaker voted against the measure: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).


Gohmert wants to preserve "lunatic" for the lunatics?

LOL!

Shaw Kenawe said...

I found this over at PoliticusUSA:

"The hard-right fringe of the Republican and tea party has warned Americans that one of the biggest threats to America is a United Nations plot to take over America, and that sentiment played out on Tuesday in the Senate when 38 Republican senators voted against ratifying a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. The treaty states that all nations should attempt to ensure that disabled people enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as every citizen, but the 38 Republicans warned the treaty poses a threat to America’s national sovereignty. Senator John Kerry explained that the treaty simply says “you can’t discriminate against the disabled. It says other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Kerry also stressed that the treaty requires no change in U.S. law, cannot change U.S. law, or serve as a basis for lawsuits in U.S. courts, and that by encouraging other countries to emulate the rights and facilities for the disabled existing in the United States, it would benefit disabled Americans, particularly veterans, who want to work, travel or study abroad.

Opposition to the treaty was led by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) who said the nature of the treaty threatened American sovereignty that will lead the state, and not parents, to determine the best interest of disabled children in the area of home schooling, and because it gives equal rights to the disabled, would lead to abortions. Lee said, “Parents will raise the children with the constant looming threat of state interference.” The conservative Heritage Action for America warned senators that if they did not vote against the treaty, their votes would be recorded on their “conservative” scorecard and repeated the claim it “would erode the principle of American sovereignty and federalism.” Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe said “I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society.”

Not all Republicans fell for the ridiculous notion the treaty was a U.N. plot to take over America, or to subvert parental rights to home school their children, or impose abortions on the disabled. Prominent Republican veterans who supported the treaty were John McCain, and former Senator Bob Dole who both suffered disabling injuries in combat. Eight Republicans joined Democrats in voting to ratify the treaty, and President Obama, in a written tribute to Bob Dole said, “Disability rights should not stop at our nation’s shores.” Veterans groups and the disabilities community widely supported the treaty that was negotiated and completed by George W. Bush’s administration in 2006, and signed by President Obama in 2009."

Shaw Kenawe said...

(cont.)

"It is difficult to comprehend how, as a party, Republicans have become so completely unhinged that they conflate a treaty on rights of the disabled with a bizarre notion that there is a one-world plot to rob Americans of their liberties, force an abortion agenda on the disabled, or prohibit parents from home schooling or sending their children to private religious schools. It is tragic that in Republican circles, a conspiracy-theory is driving how they govern, and that their hatred of President Obama coupled with their biases and paranoia over a non-existent United Nations plot has erased any compassion normal human beings have for the least fortunate among us, or that it prevented them from supporting a treaty based on a prime example of American equality and compassion."

Dave Miller said...

Skud, again your partisan view is showing through...

The Dems never had the Super majority to which you allude and even FOX News admitted this...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/

Why do you persist in such a blatant partisan untruth?

Why do you persist in ad hominem attacks on Democrats like Harry Reid? Does this help move ideas forward?

Finally, when Mitch McConnell was considering filibuster reform a few years back, was he too looking for God like powers?

I never heard any Republicans back then describe McConnells ideas for doing the same thing Reid is now considering as desiring of God like powers.

Truly, your partisanship is showing through.

You can, and have done better in the past, even being reasonable in your points against the Dems.

Dave Miller said...

As for not approving the treaty, once again, we look like idiots to most of the civilized world around the world.

As one who travels outside of our borders pretty frequently, this tpe of stuff makes life really difficult.

In January I will be answering a question from a good friend in Guadalajara, Mexico who is a quadriplegic, why the US does not support the UN Treaty designed to ush governments like his, to improve living conditions for disabled people.

Silver, we pass all sorts of resolutions such as Sense of the Senate resolutions to show our support and which have no force of law.

our politicians pass these because they believe these types of measures can provide succor to certain groups and move people to consider the plight of others.

Your comments seem to say that unless there is a law behind a UN Treaty, approval is meaningless.

Apparently a lot of the GOP agrees with you.

Too bad it only applies to something with the name UN in it as they frequently approve those other pesky statements.

Dave Miller said...

Rick Santorum, one of the people who worked hardest to derail this treaty said no government had the right to tell him how to raise his daughter Bella.

We hear this type of paranoia from many on the far right, most recently, apart from this treaty, in regards to Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign against childhood obesity.

Let me just pose a question for all you parents have absolute rights people... do parents have an unalienable right to abuse their kids, be it poor child care, physical abuse, mental abuse, or providing a diet that insures an unhealthy lifestyle?

If so, from where does that right flow, and are there any limits on that right? if there are limits, how does a civil society decide when a line has been crossed?

skudrunner said...

David,

Wrong because the two left leaning senators made it a super majority.

Your insults are unwarranted and shallow, we live in a partisan society, you a leftist and me a conservative.

Dave Miller said...

Skud... you fail to realize that one Senator Kennedy, one of 58 Dems in the Senate was on his death bed and two, Sen Franken was not seated until weeks after the election, a result of the GOP challenge.

Senator Bernie Sanders is indeed left leaning and was a pretty reliable vote, but the same could not be said of Lieberman.

Still, with Kennedy out, the best the Dems could've hoped for was 59 votes, not enough to counter a GOP filibuster.

That is before we get to the fact that Dems are much less likely to vote along strict support the party lines like the GOP does.

Our side has a lot more people with independent streaks, possibly because we do not punish them like the GOP does, as evidenced by the removal of some GOP committee members this week because they were too conservative.

Again, maybe you missed my link... FOX News does not agree that the Dems had a super majority. Finally when we get a real fact from them, you, like so many other conservatives, refuse to acknowledge it.

BTW... where did I insult you?

Rational Nation USA said...

Righto Shaw. Right is right, and since discrimination in any form is WRONG how can any reasonable person argue against it. Right? Wrong!!!

To hell with the useless UN and the concept of One World Government, which is what Silver alluded to and what the progressive want

Our Constitution, and the government of the United States of America can, and should take the right and appropriate action to insure RIGHT prevails within our country. Right? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Allowing the useless UN to dictate the laws of the Sovereign United States of America is, to say the very least both ludicrous and IMNSHO immoral.

I know I said I was through commenting on this site but I simply could not let this ridiculous and irrational post go by without comment.

Respectfully submitted,

Les Carpenter
RN USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Standing firmly against the One World Order Domination of the many Sovereign States of the Globe.

When will you progressive get it

Jerry Critter said...

I think you are stretching a bit, RN. I detect a "slight" exaggeration in your comment.

Rational Nation USA said...

Really? Well, yes. Then again a "bit of stretching" is no more or worse than the "other side" regularly engages in. IMNHO anyway. But I guess that's what makes the merry -go- round go around and around.

Perhaps that explains all the dizziness found in today's world. It ( the merry-go-round) promises to only increase in velocity.

Oy Vey... !!!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Les,

#1: This is an American initiative,
#2: It was a non-binding vote.

I agree with Jerry. SF's comments and your rant appear to be theatrical outrage over a routine vote.

It also appears that SF's and your comments are the usual knee-jerk reaction to anything the UN does.

This treaty vote was a no-brainer; therefore, the GOP no-brainers voted against it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The USAToday editorial board may help enlighten our hide-bound Anti-Anything UN paranoid friends on the right:

This week, when the Senate rejected a United Nations treaty banning discrimination against the disabled, the vote received relatively little attention. And why would it? The United States already has laws that prevent such bias. They've made curb cuts and wheelchair ramps common sights across America.

But the Senate's failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was nevertheless remarkable - for what it said about the state of domestic politics. Despite GOP efforts to recalibrate after last month's election losses, the treaty vote reflected the continuing influence of a fringe that gets frantic about anything involving the United Nations.

[...] Not long ago, the treaty would have passed easily amid lots of self- congratulations. But too many in today's GOP have turned their backs on the party's past and embraced concocted scenarios of U.N. bureaucrats telling Americans how to lead their lives and structure their laws. The opponents persuaded 38 Republican senators to vote no, enough to deprive the pact of the two-thirds needed for ratification


"...scenarios of U.N. bureaucrats telling Americans how to lead their lives and structure their laws."

Perfect description of SF and Les and their reactions to this vote.

Shaw Kenawe said...

And the LA Times:

"Paranoia strikes deep. That’s the bottom-line explanation for the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it was more than a generic fear of black helicopters (or black wheelchairs) that impelled 38 Republican senators to disrespect Bob Dole and oppose the treaty, depriving it of the required two-thirds majority.

To hear the opponents, the devil in this demonic instrument of world government was in the details.

[...] Even to analyze these specific objections may give the treaty’s opponents too much credit.

If you think the United Nations is a sinister threat to U.S. sovereignty, the details, however devilish, don’t matter much. The opposition to the treaty is probably best interpreted as a primal scream -- but the number of screamers was depressing.


The Primal Screaming GOP!

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

RN: "Standing firmly against the One World Order Domination of the many Sovereign States of the Globe."

Then explain to me the difference between "International Law" versus the paranoid delusional construct you call "One World Order."

By your logic, the Nuremberg Tribunal would be considered a tyrannical imposition of One World Order. There would be no prosecutions for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. No standards for what constitutes human rights. No standards for commerce and trade between nations. Hence, no standards of accounting, currency exchange, fair trade, or maritime law.

By your logic, a NATO action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo is not an imposition of "One World Order" only because our side does it, and whatever our side does is justifiable (but far be if from me to it call "hypocritical" just because the biggest bully on the block can send troops wherever it wants - with impunity); but when the U.N. sends peace missions into trouble zones, it's considered an imposition of One World Order and a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

No, this ridiculous debate doesn't get any stupider, more pathetic or more paranoid than this ... all because the stinking Santorum family has a defective gene map.

KP said...

@Dave Miller “… when Mitch McConnell was considering filibuster reform a few years back, was he too looking for God like powers?”

Dave, that’s a fair question. Perhaps it is best answered by the two most vocal critics of McConnell seeking to end the filibuster in 2005.For those that don’t remember when the Dems were in the minority, Senator Reid and Senator Obama went crazy at a mere mention of “nuclear option”.

Reid: "Ending the filibuster is a sheer act of brute force."

Another quote from Harry Reid: he called it "The last check against abusive power."

Senator Obama said: “Everyone in this chamber (Senate) knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, then the fighting, the bitterness, the gridlock, will only get worse." "I know the Republicans are under a lot of pressure to do this, but we need to rise above the 'ends justify the means' mentality, because we are here to represent the people, all of the people, not just the ones wearing our party label."

It there wasn’t so much emotion involved in politics, it would give us comic relief.

Merry Christmas, Dave

Dave Miller said...

And that KP sums it up... some of us can see where both sides take part in the hyperbole and some claim that only one side does it.

Regarding the filibuster, those who think otherwise are just plain uninformed...

KP, have a wonderful Christmas holiday enjoying the California sun...

Silverfiddle said...

Octo asks a good question. I don't know what Les's answer is, but here is mine:

International law and treaties have their place in making global interactions more beneficial for the signatories, and in the case of Nuremberg, it served the very beneficial purpose of punishing guilty people, and having that punishment doled out by the global community, and not just a few conquering powers.

Silverfiddle said...

Dave Miller:

"Your comments seem to say that unless there is a law behind a UN Treaty, approval is meaningless."

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

@ "In January I will be answering a question from a good friend in Guadalajara, Mexico who is a quadriplegic, why the US does not support the UN Treaty designed to push governments like his, to improve living conditions for disabled people."

I respect your point of view, and I also respect the credibility you bring because you choose to live out your faith in Mexico, rather than just sit around and pontificate.

So, given your experience, do you really think that Mexico will respond to our "pushing" them to treat their disabled better?

There's a history there, and Latin American nations do not respond well to lectures from the north.

KP said...

Thank you Dave, and blesses to you, your family and your work in the new year.

Anonymous said...

"Allowing the useless UN to dictate the laws of the Sovereign United States of America is, to say the very least both ludicrous and IMNSHO immoral."

Since that's NOT what is going on here, your statement is irrational, as usual.
A ridiculous "chicken little" rant by a reactionary who has no clue what the UN has done since the 1940's.
No surprise coming from RN.

Dave Miller said...

Silver, no, the govt of Mexico will not respond to us... but their states or localities will respond to their people who could be emboldened by our support of this UN treaty.

For the least among these to know that the most powerful nation on earth stands with them on their issues can be a powerful motivator, as many conservatives point out when it suits their issues.

This is only different by degree.

We should have supported this treaty. It required little if us, but would have spoke volumes internationally...

Leslie Parsley said...

As a friend asked, "Is it considered a medical disability when one body has 38 assholes?"

S.W. Anderson said...

Sliverdiddle, if ignorance is bliss you should be in a perpetual state of ecstasy. Why do I say that? Because you write things like this:

"Santorum aside, you do realize this vote was to ratify as UN treaty, making it the law of the United States, right?"

If you weren't steeped in the twisted, distorted, festering bile served up by the right-wing noise machine you'd might know this treaty is based on the Americans With Disabilities Act, passed and signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. You've got it exactly backwards.

So, what's in this treaty has been the law of this land for 22 years. And yet, ours is still a free and independent country. It's just that people in wheelchairs can actually get into places like courthouses they help pay for, into schools their kids attend, on parents' night — that kind of thing. Pretty tame stuff where subversion of the flag, mom and apple pie are concerned.

" The treaty has passed at the UN and has been adopted by over 150 countries around the world."


No, it's been ratified by 126 countries.

What comes through in your comment is fear and loathing of having anything to do with the U.N. That's foolish, because the the U.N. is a good organization that does plenty of good things around the world every day, every year since its establishment. No, it's not perfect, any more than our own Congress — now with poll numbers that telemarketers look down on — is perfect. The U.N. was designed and is operated by imperfect mortals, after all. But it's still damned good, and if we didn't already have it we would need to get busy and create it.

Please, do us all a favor and do some reading up on the U.N. Learn what it is, how it works, what it does and some of its history — from an ethical, neutral source. You'll be amazed it's not plotting to take over America, usurp our government's authority or usher in an era of total world control. The U.N. would be delighted if it could just help arrange for every child to have needed immunizations, clean water to drink and enough food to eat. That kind of thing — no black helicopters, no evil plot.

S.W. Anderson said...

"Santorum said he didn't want international lawyers and foreign countries telling him or telling local officials what they can or cannot do as far as treatment for his daughter. And that was his reason in convincing a lot of Republicans to reject the treaty."

There's nothing in the treaty that would make it possible for international lawyers, foreign countries or even Dag Hammarskjold's ghost to tell Santorum to so much as hold a Kleenex to his daughter's nose if it's running. The treaty calls on other countries to adopt the standards of our disabilities act. And, even here in the good old U.S. of A., Americans With Disabilities Act or no, no one is telling Santorum what to do with his daughter. The man just hasn't bothered to find out what the treaty really is, what it would and wouldn't do, and why it's nothing like he's making it out to be.

At this late date, with the mountains of evidence he created since he first darkened the Senate's door, even "a lot of Republicans" should know what a complete ignoramus Santorum is.

I don't say that because I have no use for Santorum's in-your-face, holier-than-thou attitude and even less use for his political ideology. I don't say it because he strikes me as being an insipid, self-superior twit. I say it because of all the times he's opened his ill-informed, misinformed mouth and made it clear he's a dim-witted jerk.

Tao Speaks said...

Since WWII how many wars has the US fought that were unilateral vs. multilateral, how many of them were fought under UN approval?

Remember the last conservative administrative pleading its case for war in Iraq at the UN?

With WTO, IMF, and the World Bank to name just a few, what exactly does the term "sovereignty" mean anymore?

Oh, but when the UN wants to use our American With Disability Act to sponsor support around the world the right just goes nuts voting against this UN measure.

This is shadow boxing plain and simple.

As far as Santorum goes, it is getting a little sickening that way he uses his daughter as a prop everytime he needs a prop....David Alexrod has a child with a disabilty and you never see him using his child a prop.

Its a shame that conservatives are down to fighting windmills....there really is nothing to defend in regards to the behavior of the Republicans and the right is just going to have to learn that knee jerk responses to everything the Republicans do as they slowly but obviously fall further into irrelevancy is not doing their cause any good.

Anonymous said...

Your suggestion for conservatives would be?