Marco Rubio’s Sorry Excuse for Voting Against #VAWA

Rubio is a thirsty jerkMarco Rubio’s excuse for voting against the Violence Against Women Act doesn’t pass the smell test:

Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences. 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. 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. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.

As asiangrrlMN pointed out recently:

 

Native American women are American citizens, too.  They deserve to have the same rights and protections that we all do.  The VAWA will mean that Native American women who are raped by non-Native American men will have their day in Tribal Court.

As for Rubio’s concern about diverting funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, Eric Holder pointed out the benefit of VAWA back in September:

On the front lines of this effort, the Office on Violence Against Women administers VAWA programs, providing states, territories, local and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations with critical resources to initiate and sustain efforts to reduce and stop violence against women.

Besides, can women trust states to have their best interests at heart? Not if last year’s attempt by Kansas to decriminalize domestic violence is any indication.

Marco Rubio is no savior to women. He’s just a thirsty jerk.

[cross-posted at ABLC]

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






13 replies
  1. 1
    Patricia Kayden says:

    How about non-Indian men not going onto reservations to have their way with Indian women? Will be interesting when Rubio has to defend this vote if he decides to run for the Presidency in 2016.

  2. 2
    Mister Harvest says:

    It’s certainly admirable that so many Republicans have “concerns” about the jurisdictional issues in VAWA. Concerned, they are! Very concerned. No solutions are forthcoming, but they are most very very very concerned. Why can’t everyone just let them be, given how concerned they are.

    Let us translate this into real English: “Everyone knows those redskin courts aren’t real courts. We’re not going let white men be tried by them. Are you kidding me?”

  3. 3
    Comrade Jake says:

    You’re being way too kind describing him as a thirsty jerk. More like a grade-A asshole.

  4. 4
    Ash Can says:

    @Patricia Kayden: He wouldn’t have to defend it at all in the primaries. He voted exactly the way the GOP base wanted, I’m sure. Defending his vote in the real world, outside the GOP bubble, on the other hand, is where he’d run into trouble.

  5. 5
    Haydnseek says:

    Did he really say Indian country? Oh well, at least he didn’t say “Injun.”

    “Marco, it’s awful quiet out there…….”
    “I know, Rand. TOO quiet…..”

  6. 6
    blotusguy says:

    >>>I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.<<<

    This is exactly the problem republicans have with this bill. They don't want to establish the notion that tribes have sovereignty over any outsiders taking advantage of any Indians, especially such "persons" as corporations, which have been raping all Indians and getting away with it much the same way some white men have been raping some Indian women and getting away with it.

    I really don’t think they give rat’s ass about protecting the rights of any white guys abusing native women on the rez.

  7. 7

    That seems awfully post hoc.

  8. 8
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @Ash Can: I’m positive that his “reasons” will go over well with Republicans but will be a dud against any Democratic candidate — especially Secretary Clinton. She would chew him up and spit him out during the first debate. Literally.

  9. 9
    efgoldman says:

    “Oh no, police on Indian land American soil are allowed to arrest non-Indians non-Americans if they commit crimes! This is terrrrrible!”

    Maybe we should send Rubio to, say, Germany and have him rob a Bierstube, see what happens.
    Shithead.

  10. 10
    efgoldman says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    …especially Secretary Clinton.

    Sorry, Hillary fans. I really think she’s going to pass. She had a bad health scare and she’s as old as I am. Campaigns, as we know, can be killer stressful situations physically, mentally, every kind of way.

  11. 11
    Aji says:

    Let’s be clear here: It’s not an excuse. The single biggest sticking point for Cantor and his caucus was protection of Indian women. They want to roll back sovereignty, and they want to do it on the backs of our brutalized bodies. I’ve written about this elsewhere many, many times. Here are the reported stats as of 2.5 years ago (not that word “reported” – NDN women don’t report, because nothing will be done, so the reality is that they are much, MUCH higher):

    By the Numbers

    One in every three Native American women will be raped at least once during her lifetime.

    One in three.

    At least once.

    That’s more than twice the rate for any other ethnic group in the U.S.

    I’ve sat with some of these women, heard their stories, shared their pain and grief and fear. And I’ve shared their frustration with the knowledge that, some 86% of the time, their rapists were virtually untouchable.

    Why?

    Because with very few exceptions, tribal authorities have had no jurisdiction over non-Indian criminal offenders – and 86% of rapes of Native women are committed by non-Indian rapists (70% are white).

    And that doesn’t even touch the physical [i.e., non-sexual] assault numbers.

    What I think of Marco Rubio and his fellow racists doesn’t bear repeating.

  12. 12
    rikyrah says:

    @blotusguy:

    I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.

    This is exactly the problem republicans have with this bill. They don’t want to establish the notion that tribes have sovereignty over any outsiders taking advantage of any Indians, especially such “persons” as corporations, which have been raping all Indians and getting away with it much the same way some white men have been raping some Indian women and getting away with it.

    that’s how I see it.

    there aren’t any Black or Brown people around these reservations, so who’s doing all the raping of Native American women?

    yeah, and THAT’S WHY the GOP won’t protect the Native American women.

  13. 13
    Ziggy says:

    I have an opinion on this matter: WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT MARCO RUBIO?

Comments are closed.