Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Republican Rape Caucus

[ 87 ] April 27, 2012 |

Your 31 pro-rape Republicans:

John Barrasso WY
Roy Blunt MO
John Boozman AR
Richard M. Burr NC
Saxby Chambliss GA
Tom Coburn OK
Thad Cochran MS
John Cornyn TX
Jim DeMint SC
Michael B. Enzi WY
Lindsey Graham SC
Charles E. Grassley IA
Orrin G. Hatch UT
James M. Inhofe OK
Johnny Isakson GA
Mike Johanns NE
Ron Johnson WI
Jon Kyl AZ
Mike Lee UT
Richard G. Lugar IN
Mitch McConnell KY
Jerry Moran KS
Rand Paul KY
Jim Risch ID
Pat Roberts KS
Marco Rubio FL
Jeff Sessions AL
Richard C. Shelby AL
John Thune SD
Patrick J. Toomey PA
Roger Wicker MS

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (87)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. njorl says:

    That’s not really fair. Most of them are probably just pro wife-beating.

    • R Johnston says:

      Spousal rape is rape and tends to go along with wife beating.

      Of course Republicans don’t believe that spousal rape is rape, but that’s due to the same underlying problem of not believing that women are people and individuals.

      • LKS says:

        Many MRA types don’t see anything wrong with wife-beating either. It’s “discipline” to make sure the wife knows her subordinate place. No links from me, but the MRA sites are full of this pathology, and the “mens’ rights” movement is inextricably intwined with the religious right.

  2. Bill Murray says:

    sadly are there even 5 of them that are currently vulnerable to losing in their next general election

  3. fasteddie9318 says:

    I can see the ads now:

    “Call Senator Toomey/Enzi/etc. and ask him why he’s in favor of violence against women.”

    –This ad paid for by Democrats in Fucking Fantasy Land, Because the Real Democratic Party Would Never Even Consider Something This Harsh

    • Erik Loomis says:

      The Villagers would not approve.

      • olexicon says:

        “A TV commercial for Sideshow Bob is shown.

        [scene shows prisoners going in a revolving door and coming out
        immediately]
        Voice: Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even
        released Sideshow Bob — a man twice convicted of attempted
        murder.
        [scene shows prisoners leaving on escalator and ski lift]
        Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for
        mayor.”

      • fasteddie9318 says:

        I know. Bobo would lament the fact that the two parties can’t come together to find common ground between raping women and not raping them, perhaps handjobs in the park with the providers selected by lottery or something. The Mustache of Understanding would call for Michael Bloomberg to lead a third party movement dedicated to passage of the Violence Against Women Act, since both the Democrats and Republicans aren’t passing it. Chuck Lane would muse on how it was really the Democrats who were fomenting violence against women. &c.

  4. Lee says:

    Any sensible and reasonably agressive Democratic politician should remind voters that a vote for Republicans is a vote for rape. Its true and effective.

  5. rea says:

    You know, when you look down that list, you notice that there aren’t any women’s names, other than Lindsey Graham.

  6. Steve says:

    Pro-rape republicans? Really?

    My understanding is that rape is illegal regardless of whether this bill is passed or not.

    • olexicon says:

      Would you prefer “Pro-Wife beating”?

      • fasteddie9318 says:

        Well, obviously, providing counseling for battered wives, to say nothing of shelters outside the marital home, is simply anti-family. There’s no other way to describe it.

      • Steve says:

        I’d prefer misleading hyperbolic rhetoric to go away, as it rarely accomplishes anything.

        For example, one could (with equal absurdity) also say that anyone who supports the Violence Against Women Act is in support of violence against women. That would be incorrect, but you could still say that and get a whole lot of people who don’t want to think for themselves up in arms.

        • fasteddie9318 says:

          For example, one could (with equal absurdity) also say that anyone who supports the Violence Against Women Act is in support of violence against women.

          That wouldn’t even be close to “equal absurdity.” It would be absurd to a level exponentially beyond what either Loomis or olexicon wrote.

          • Steve says:

            Ok then, remove the word equal and try to concentrate on the actual point rather than distract from it.

            Since my goal in posting here is always to encourage independent thought, I’m ok with that.

            • fasteddie9318 says:

              Yes, on the one hand you have Republicans voting against a bill that provides aid to victims of violent crime against women and some services that help to reduce the occurrence of domestic violence.

              On the other hand, the name is totes funny and you can for reals say that voting for the “Violence Against Women Act” is just like voting for “violence against women.”

              Absurdity all around. I feel so independent!

            • Malaclypse says:

              Since by “encourage independent thought,” you mean “stop criticizing Republicans,” I wish you a quick and speedy failure.

              • DrDick says:

                I always prefer a simple “fuck you and the horse you rode in on” in these circumstances. Concern troll is concerned that we are not being civil and bipartisan. Duly noted and now he can fuck off and take his bullshit “civility” with him.

          • Karate Bearfighter says:

            Steve is right. It’s hyperbolic to claim these Republican senators are in favor of rape and domestic violence, when an analysis of the provisions they object to demonstrates only that they are in favor of rape and domestic violence when committed against undocumented immigrants, indians, and people in non-hetero relationships. You can’t just go around making hurtful accusations that Republicans are pro-rape, unless you have conclusive proof that all Republicans are in favor of all rape. Many Republicans are in fact deeply, deeply concerned about the possibility that a white woman could be raped by a non-white man, and your rhetoric ignores that fact.

        • Steve says:

          Actually, upon further consideration, I shouldn’t have said “it rarely accomplishes anything”. It accomplishes keeping two political parties perpetually pissed off at each other for reasons backed up by only slight truth at best. It keeps legions of party faithful angry at “the other guy” for messing up the country, and keeps the campaign contributions rolling in.

          What I should have said is “it rarely accomplishes anything useful for our country”

  7. Time was Dick Lugar would have crossed the aisle on this one. The rest are just the usual assholes.

    • olexicon says:

      “The rest are just the usual assholes.”

      A Republican Election Slogan for our times

    • Ken Houghton says:

      Horesh*t. Although there are idiots–including, regrettably, a couple of the bloggers here–who try to pretend that Lugar is a Sensible Republican.

      • R Johnston says:

        People really need to stop treating “almost but not quite as crazy as the rest of the Republicans” as some sort of low hurdle to sensibility.

        Who was the last sensible Republican anyway? Earl Warren? There certainly haven’t been any of any prominence in my lifetime. The best I’ve ever seen a Republican aspire to is “harmless idiot.”

    • proverbialleadballoon says:

      why categorize reauthorizing the domestic violence act as ‘crossing the aisle’, anyway? is protecting the rights of women a ‘liberal’ thing? well, ok, then, as that appears to be the case, glad i’m a liberal.

  8. ScottC says:

    Interesting that Rubio is on this list, but Portman is not.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      That is indeed pretty interesting. Wondering what each thought their angle was here.

      • STH says:

        Yes, I find myself wondering if this improves Rubio’s chances of being picked as the Republican Veep candidates or hurts them. I’m assuming he thinks the former, which tells me the Republicans aren’t giving up on the War on Women.

        • MattT says:

          We’re all just guessing, but I think it’s quite possible he didn’t think it would effect his chances one way or the other and was actually just against it.

      • R Johnston says:

        I’m guessing Portman, more than Rubio, would be happy with a Vice Presidential nomination, and the vote was make to allow a fake appearance of moderation that’s appealing in a Veep pick. Rubio has a political future, or at least likes to think he does, and being on ticket that, win or lose, is bound for disaster shouldn’t be attractive to him right now. He’d rather advance in the caucus and retain hopes of being President himself one day.

        Portman, as a relatively even tempered, polite, albeit completely insane wingnut, doesn’t really have much of a future in the Republican caucus, which demands a more flamboyant and outspoken kind of crazy, and Ohio is blueing fairly rapidly, so even his seat isn’t all that safe. Being Veep in 2013 would be a good career move for him, even if the potential Romney administration goes down in flames.

  9. ChrisCicc says:

    Did you read the article you posted? “The final vote, 68 to 31, including 15 Republicans”

    MORE DEMOCRATS than republicans!

    You are such a liberal loser.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.