Update: Rape-Nuts

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Rachel Maddow Show reported Wednesday evening that the Republicans who voted against the Al Franken Amendment to the defense appropriations bill are taking heated criticism from the editors of their Red State newspapers back home. 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, October 21:

MADDOW: Thirty Republican senators – 30 of the 40 total Republican senators we have now cast a vote recently that has even the conservative op-ed pages of the senator's local hometown papers burning bright with outrage.

It may be the sleeper political issue of the year, the vote that will launch 1,000 campaign ads, if nothing else. And it seems to have already caused a lot of regret.

* * *

MADDOW: One specific vote on one specific part of the giant legislation that funds the Defense Department is turning into a real political problem for 30 Republican senators.

In Idaho, the "Lewiston Morning Tribune" called out its two senators in an editorial titled, "Senators Crapo and Risch Cast an Inexplicable Vote."

In Mississippi, "The Clarion Ledger" editorialized, quote, "Senators Cochran and Wicker voted to protect corporations, not victims, and they should own up to that."

An opinion piece in the "Osawatomie Graphic" was titled simply, "Kansas Senators are Disappointing." In Tennessee, a "Crossville Chronicle" writers asked, "Whose Side are Our Senators On?"

The "Athens Banner Herald" in Georgia headlined a letter quote, "Georgia Senators Embarrass State." And in Louisiana, a "Shreveport Times" writer asks, quote, "What exactly is Sen. David Vitter problem with women."

When Republicans are getting called out in Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Georgia, something big is going on politically…"

Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain voted against the Franken Amendment. I have been reviewing Arizona's major newspapers since the vote, and as of yet I have not found one editorial opinion on the vote from the editors of the state's major newspapers. (If you are aware of one I may have missed, please post a link to it in the comments).

The best that I can find is this mildly critical opinion by E.J. Montini of The Arizona Republic today. A puzzling 'no' vote vs. victims:

Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl voted no.

Last week, I asked them why. In return I received a note from a McCain staffer. Nothing from Kyl.

* * *

Opponents noted that the Department of Defense was against the amendment, saying it would be difficult to enforce. They also said that the government should not dictate terms to a private company; that the amendment included too many offenses, and that arbitration is a better resolution than court.

McCain staffer Brooke Buchanan explained her boss' vote in an e-mail that reads:

"As the amendment stood, it would deny the Department of Defense (DoD) funds under existing contracts that have the mandatory arbitration clause even if performance under the contract was in all ways satisfactory. In other words, it would force DoD to stop payment on a contract over a clause that was legal at the time and had nothing to do with performance.

"Had Franken aimed his provision at future contracts, then the question would have been whether this is good policy. But as applied to existing contracts, it was a matter of 'you can't back up from here.'

"Also, where ever possible an environment that encourages arbitration instead of litigation that overburdens the court system is a good thing. Of course, Senator McCain strongly opposes any activity or behavior, including of course sexual harassment, in violation of law."

Sen. Kyl's office didn't respond.

However, Sen. Franken has noted that his amendment "does not require contractors to change or modify existing employment contracts. It only bars funds to contractors who continue to use these mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts."

No single vote defines a politician. Kyl and McCain have supported crime victims. Maybe they saw this as an attack on defense contractors or wrote it off as a political hammer Democrats want to use against Republicans. The fact remains, it's a simple question. One that Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, a Republican who voted for the amendment, answered best.

He said, "I can't see in any circumstance that a woman who was a victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her right to go to court."

Contact your local newspaper editors to inquire of their editorial opinion. And write a letter to the editor of your local newspapers about this vote.