Skip to comments.Sources: Menendez holding up vote on resolution honoring Margaret Thatcher
Posted on 04/15/2013 8:17:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez is holding up a vote in the U.S. Senate on a resolution honoring Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom who died last week after suffering a stroke, multiple sources tell The Daily Caller.
While the House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring Thatcher last week, Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, objects to some of the language proposed by Republicans in the Senates version, sources said.
A copy of the proposed resolution, which would be offered by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, honors the life, legacy, and example of British Prime Minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher.
Another source said Democrats want to black out everything but a few lines acknowledging her service as prime minister.
Reacting to the news, conservatives slammed Menendez.
I dont know if hes blocking the Thatcher resolution because he likes Socialism or because he holds women in such low regard, but Senator Menendez should drop his objections immediately, Matt Hoskins, the executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Democrats are the ill wind that blows.
Democrats definitely blow.
Only in the democrat party could an abhorrent little scumbag like Menendez still have a career.
Be proud, Jersey.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason to stall such a vote. Honor her and keep your stupid petty gripes to yourself, Bob.
What a jerk.
The problem is that Menendez doesn’t realize that women over the age of 15 exist, so he was like, ‘Margaret who?’
***Government should fear the people alert***
Now what else would you expect. Understand the government we have today is worse than the USSR.
Just the ones over thirteen.
He’s a wicked, evil S.O.B.
“This more than anything shows the contempt that the Dems have for the USA”
Huh? Thatcher wasn’t a USican.
Why do we care what Congress honors, by the way? As if she’s unhonored so long as that den of thieves refuses to honor her. I say we hold the empty, symbolic gestures while we’re trillions in debt, or forever, maybe.
“Government should fear the people alert”
Gubmint should fear our wrath on behalf of the former head of some foreign gubmint a while ago? Why do we have to hold the standard for one politician against a bunch of other politicians. Don’t “the people” have more important issues to scare gubmint over?
I didn’t say “contempt for Thatcher”. If the Dems won’t honor an ally, it shows the contempt they hold for this land especially by debasing it. And this is an act of debasement, just like when they attempted to remove God from their party platform.
“I didn’t say ‘contempt for Thatcher’”
I know. You said holding up a vote honoring Thatcher demonstrates the contempt Dems have for the USA. But I can’t see how it could, unless you think Thatcher somehow represents something essential about the USA. Which I can’t see. Actually, it would seem to imply that she had done a poor job as prime minister of her country, if what she is essentially in the cast of another country. It would be as if she were what lefty Brits accused Tony Blair of being, namely our lapdog.
“If the Dems won’t honor an ally”
You seem to shift ground, here. Nevermind failing to honor an ally never possibly amounting to show the Dems’ contempt “more than anything.” I can see a million more obvious proofs of their contempt for our country, or at least our country as it used to be, than the rebuking of a former ally. You are off the deep end, equating the snubbing of an ally with contempt for country. There is no identity of allies. We are not them; they are not us.
Some make much of transatlantic sympathy. There are still and used to be many more fanatics for the “Anglo-American Alliance.” They were apt to be of that party you mentioned as having contempt for this country, or to be what we term “neoconservatives,” which I don’t closely associate with the essential USA.
I am not shifting ground; I’m clarifying. The way I see it, to be so low as to snub an ally is to also dishonor one’s own country. There are certainly numerous other instances of the Dems displaying contempt for the USA, but this is the one that applies in this thread.
“just like they when they attempted to remove God from their party platform.”
There’re better grounds for asserting denial of God is contempt for the USA than is not honoring Thatcher. God, at least, appears in the document announcing the divorce of various of our states from the country Thatcher actually represents.
Let's see. Menendez sleeps with underage prostitutes. In what kind of regard should we THINK he holds women?
“to be so low as to snub an ally is to also dishonor one’s own country.”
I disagree. Especially considering she wasn’t a wartime ally, or anything of the nature. In any case you can’t possibly assert that snubbing an ally shows your contempt for this country “more than anything” else. That’s absurd.
You seem to be very literal-minded tonight. You assembling a scale of Democratic Party atrocities? If so, you can put slighting allies anywhere you feel it belongs on it; I won’t complain if it’s not on top. I might even agree with your list placement.
And actually, we were indeed wartime allies when it came to the Falklands War. The USA gave the UK material support; both the House and the Senate approved that move.
You have no idea, as to IA operations, that reopened under Lady Thatcher. What’s your deal, yobbie.
Honor is an attribute that will never be attached to a low-life hack such as he.
I will be sending a note to “My” Senator shortly...
What’s up with his War on Women? First he won’t pay his underage prostitutes, now he won’t honor a powerful woman....
Why do democrats hate non lesbian women?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.