The CRPD and Conventional Thinking

No one who has read any of my earlier posts doubts where I stand on the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). I am for it, and the sooner the better. The latest conventional thinking is that it is better if a mark up and floor action occur after the primaries and the Supreme Court Decision in the Bond case. Huh? Does anyone think that politicians who win out over Tea Party candidates will be more inclined to support ratification? Or, that if they lose to such candidates they will be more likely to support ratification? The former will want to shore up their base. The latter will be too depressed to care. As for the Bond case, it was absurd that the federal government got involved in a love triangle that should have been left to the state. By the time the Supreme Court rules, carves new legal precedents or chooses not to, and the CRPD opponents write legally convoluted arguments to connect it to the CRPD, we will be into the summer recess and all politicians will be campaigning for the mid-term elections. Does anyone really think the CRPD will be on ANYBODY's radar by then?

Conventional thinking also says that the time we have till the end of June can be put to good use -- sharing lots of personal stories connected to the CRPD and working on getting to 67 Senators or more for a successful vote. Finally, conventional thinking says we must keep the pressure on the Senators -- show them we have lots of momentum. The problem is momentum builds when people see progress. It is impossible to build or sustain momentum when there is a strategically calculated lull or vacuum.

Tony Coelho has said, "Get mad!" Well, maybe he's right. Waiting till July and making contact with Senators, knowing that nothing will happen till then, assumes that we are stupid or as the Brits would say, "One sandwich short at a picnic."

Thank you.
Common Grounder