Republican Pretexts For Opposing the VAWA
The latest. I think this is the most instructive:
The random “welfare bill” accusations. This one is a wild card that is fairly unspecific. Last week, original VAWA sponsor Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said that the expanded provisions took his “landmark legislation, only to come right in and change it to make another welfare bill.” There’s nothing new in the bill that represents “welfare,” unless that’s just code for “groups I don’t really want to help.”
I think that pretty much gives away the show on multiple fronts.
Caroline Abbott:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Wow. Hatch demagoguery is boundless.
CaptBackslap:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:25 pm
The DSHEA is still his finest hackwork, all these years later. God only knows how many people have died because of that.
Joe:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Haven’t heard from that guy for awhile. Haven’t missed much, I see. Used to be he was now and again “one of the sane ones.” His changing position on the legislation is sorta telling on that front.
Murc:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Well, Hatch is right.
The VAWA is a welfare bill. It is a bill aimed at improving the welfare of women, and thereby that of the populace in general.
Any statement Republicans make regarding anything being a welfare bill should get a response of “You’re damned right it is. We’re pro-welfare. Want to make something of it?”
JKTHs:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
I think that’s their objection.
joe from Lowell:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Playing the welfare card against the VAWA is the most strategically brilliant political move since John McCain spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and days of the late-stage campaign telling America that his opponent wanted to spread the wealth.
Hey, guys, I’ve got this great idea! You know how the public hates “welfare?” Well, let’s make them equate “welfare” with things like protecting women from domestic violence!
Karate Bearfighter:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Wait, are you saying Congress’ failure to renew the VAWA is … good news for John McCain?
Karate Bearfighter:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
The “welfare bill” rationale is pretty stunning, but the fact that a mail order bride service is the leading lobbyist against the U-visa provision is not far behind.
JL:
February 7th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
Hey, guys, I’ve got this great idea! You know how the public hates “welfare?” Well, let’s make them equate “welfare” with things like protecting women from domestic violence!
It’s right up there with making them equate “socialism” with things like “any health care reform advanced by Democrats” (or really, any policy at all advanced by Democrats).
rea:
February 7th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
a mail order bride service with a CEO who has been convicted of abusing his mail order bride, no less.
joe from Lowell:
February 7th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
I remember when one of those creepy “men’s rights” groups in Massachusetts put on a big push to…I swear to God I’m not making this up…to allow men fighting restraining orders in court to have greater access to their accusers’ medical and psychiatric records.
These fellas are exactly who they seem to be.
joe from Lowell:
February 7th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Absolutely.
John McCain has never been closer to the Presidency than he is right now. I mean that.
commie atheist:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Come on, everyone knows that welfare is handouts to Queen Latifahs who drive Cadillacs and black bucks who buy t-bones (or was it the other way around?). Oh, yeah, and Obamaphones.
commie atheist:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
They are who we thought they were?
TT:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:11 pm
There’s nothing new in the bill that represents “welfare,” unless that’s just code for “groups I don’t really want to help.”
Now that DADT has been repealed, I’m sure that defense spending will become another “welfare” bill if/when benefits for same-sex military spouses are proposed.
FlipYrWhig:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:18 pm
This makes perfect sense in the conservative lexicon. “Welfare” means “the government helping Those People in ways they haven’t properly earned.” “Socialism” also means that. So does “The Deficit.”
DrDick:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:28 pm
More particularly, it improves the welfare of suspiciously dark skinned women.
ExpatJK:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
It’s not welfare, it’s special rights. How come women want special rights? They claim they want equality and then they ask for special rights. Liars!
-pretty much verbatim comment made to me on an Internet message board re the VAWA. I don’t think it’s possible to engage with that level of stupid…
joe from Lowell:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
I’d never heard of that. From the FDA’s web site:
On first reading, it almost looks like the DSHEA created or strengthened regulation, but then you realize that “the manufacturer is responsible” means “the FDA isn’t responsible, it’s totally up to them.”
dmsilev:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
That’s not true. This coming Tuesday, for instance, John McCain will be roughly 50 or 100 feet away from the Presidency as he sits and watches Barack Obama give the State of the Union address.
joe from Lowell:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Pffffftttt! Soup out the nose.
Ach! Mein freude! It is schaden!
Joe:
February 7th, 2013 at 7:56 pm
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Josh G.:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
As Roger Moore put it:
efgoldman:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
I’m sure their argument is that Madison didn’t have a good enough Thesaurus.
Uncle Ebeneezer:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Crown em!!!
BigHank53:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Well, that’s the general welfare, see, and VAWA protects individual women, right? So totally different things. Something that enhanced the general welfare would be a capital gains tax cut, which would benefit everyone.*
*Everyone rich enough, anyway.
UserGoogol:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:34 pm
That’s really lazy “we’re a republic, not a democracy”-type argumentation. Language evolves. Welfare in the sense of general well-being is something very few politicians will ever state opposition to because it’s such a vaguely benign concept. But the word welfare has also taken on the more narrow meaning (although ultimately rather vaguely defined) of providing financial assistance to those in exceptional need, which wasn’t an idea completely foreign to the founding fathers but wasn’t what they were talking about either. It’s certainly quite easy to argue that the mentions of “welfare” in the old general sense in the Constitution justify the administration of welfare in the new narrower sense, but it’s extremely pedantic to conflate the two to try to trip conservatives up.
UserGoogol:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Of course, in this particular instance it’s hard to figure out what the hell Orrin Hatch is talking about (maybe pro bono legal assistance is a sort of in-kind welfare in his eyes?) but that’s separate from the question of whether playing the preamble card is just cheap wordplay.
Murc:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Greater than what, exactly?
You can already get your hands on damn near anything during discovery.
LosGatosCA:
February 7th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
I think the commonality between VAWA and welfare is the lack of empathy that Republicans have innately. Throw in folks with disabilities as well.
In the case of poor, disadvantaged people – they haven’t been favored by the Republican god of money because they must be undeserving.
And apparently in the case of women that get raped (see Akin, Mourdock) or abused, they must have done something to deserve it. After all if they were chaste, obedient women they would have married good Republican men because the Republican god of money thought they were deserving.
Phil Gramm captured it best when talking to Jim Jeffords about not fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“They aren’t our folks.”
That narrows it down to employed or wealthy, healthy gun owning white conservative heterosexual males and the chaste wives that do what they are told so that they never have to risk getting abused.
It’s a simple world for them. Anything that complicates it is socialistic evil welfare by definition.
LosGatosCA:
February 7th, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Here’s another example:
January 31-February 3, 2013
Survey of 508 Republican primary voters
What do you think is a bigger safety threat in
America: guns or violent video games?
Guns 14%
……………………………………………
Video games 67%
……………………………………………
Not sure 19%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_207.pdf
These are your neighbors, folks.
joe from Lowell:
February 7th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
I think, perhaps, there were some protections that judges were enforcing to prevent them from going on fishing expeditions through their victims histories.
And we can’t have that now.
rea:
February 8th, 2013 at 6:08 am
Kinda makes you want to beat them over the head with your copy of Civilization V . . .
Ken:
February 8th, 2013 at 7:32 am
Some were, just this week.
wembley:
February 8th, 2013 at 9:34 am
Don’t forget the lesbians!
JKTHs:
February 8th, 2013 at 9:41 am
We let em off the hook!
daveNYC:
February 8th, 2013 at 9:41 am
Unfortunately even my Mom thinks that video games are too violent and that ‘something should be done’. Hard core liberal on everything else, so I guess it’s just part of the general ‘get off my lawn’ old person complaint thing.
Njorl:
February 8th, 2013 at 9:56 am
I beat a Republican over the head with Civ V for about an hour or two, then went back to beating him with Civ IV. It was much more satisfying.
OzarkHillbilly:
February 8th, 2013 at 10:04 am
For what it’s worth, I don’t like the violence in video games either. Guess that’s why I don’t buy them.
sharculese:
February 8th, 2013 at 10:18 am
You’re the reason Curt Schilling was forced to abandon his principles and take all those government handouts.
Cody:
February 8th, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Well, I think if you haven’t actually played video games and just listen to the media you form your opinion.
It never seemed a logical argument to me, but if they’re going to limit violence in video games they better get rid of everything violent on TV.
(Except Elementary, they can’t cancel that!!)
sibusisodan:
February 8th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Worst. Bond Movie. Ever.
J. R. in W. Va.:
February 9th, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Well, the VAWA seems, to me at least, to be one of those things that can define whether one is a decent human being, or not. I mean, you either beat your wife when she needs it, or you let her run over you, right?
Clearly, Senator Hatch is one that beats his wife, regularly, to keep her in her place, beneath his foot. Or wants to, anyway.
I on the other hand, rarely even raise my voice to my wife, lest it start her off on something.
/snark
But I’m dead serious about Senator Hatch, no gentleman he! Happy to facilitate the violence against women the best he can! Just another little monster wearing a Republican mask. Turns my stomach.
I’m beginning to think almost all Republicans have some fundamental thing wrong in their brains, that results in a quite finite quantity of empathy, and most of them use it up on their puppy while a mere child. Except for those who torture the neighborhood puppies for sport.