Supporting the tea party
While “A shameful inability to help the disabled” [Editorials, Dec. 10] was correct — it was a shameful display by most of the Republican senators when they voted against this U.N. treaty — The Times is showing more than a bit of hypocrisy in taking this position.

I say this because the Republicans who voted against this measure did so largely because they are facing a tea-party faction in their own state who may run a tea-party-supported candidate against them in their next campaign.

When The Times endorses someone as tea-party-based as John Koster for the U.S. House of Representatives, as the editorial board did in the most recent election cycle, it is advocating tea party positions. They in turn influence decisions to which you now stand opposed.

How can The Times justify both positions? In my mind, one cannot and it is further evidence that The Seattle Times has itself on a slippery slope.

—Vincent J. Lee, Seattle