In my view, Marco Rubio’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech last night was just warmed-over Republican dogma in a newer package, a Latino cynically calculated to solve all the party’s problems with the Hispanic voters in the country. It’s counter-intuitive, but maybe the GOP should be happy about the water bottle episode, as it gave the press corps something to laugh about and amuse itself with, rather than focus on what Rubio actually said.
His performance and buy-in to the same old same old his party’s been peddling since Reagan is one good reason not to consider voting for Rubio in 2016, but the bigger reason might be this, his reasons for not voting for the Violence Against Women Act of 2913:
Specifically, this bill would mandate the diversion of a portion of funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, although there’s no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions.
Hmm. I was unaware that the goal of these programs was to convict perpetrators; I was under the impression it was to save victims of abuse. We continue:
These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice.
Yes, well, it seems obvious that the individual states are not taking any action, which is why there’s a need for Federal legislation now and why there has been a need since 1994 when the first VAWA legislation was passed. What’s next?
Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.
Ah. Now we see the man behind the curtain. Some white guys might get charged and, worse, possibly convicted by Indian courts if they should be found guilty of abusing Indian women. That would not please the racists and bigots who make up a goodly percentage of my party’s base. Can’t have that.
So there you have it. Mr. Rubio is a craven politician, not a great brown hope.
WHY did no talking heads pick up on this!
This touches upon something that crosses my mind from time to time.
It seems sometimes that the opposition to anti-sexist & anti-prejudice is mounted based upon some of the victims of said prejudices embracing the discrimination somehow, either by trickery or some clouded logical fallacy.
No one in the mainstream wants to touch this stuff, because it’s too hot. If you consider these possibilities, you have to actually address that there’s a sociological (possibly psychological) problem among humans all over the world, regarding the tendency toward counter-productive prejudices & “us vs. them” thinking. It’s hard to explain with scientific explanations or address with religious beliefs – let alone to consider productive policy to regulate this part of the human condition, for the benefit of us all.
This issue is too big & disturbing for most people to stomach while trying to live their daily lives, and the media reporters & politicians know this, and act accordingly.
The Onion “report” on the State of the Union was very funny to me, for just this reason.
Pingback: Rubio redux | Linkmeister