Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a "no" vote on the amendment.

And this, not their continuously displayed disdain for women*, is the shocking thing. WTF did they think would happen? This vote is soundbite heaven.

*Yeah, I know this amendment covers men as well as women, but it's overwhelmingly affecting women.

"that was prompted by the brutal gang-rape of a young woman by her co-workers while she was working for a company under contract for the United States government, after which she was locked in a shipping container without food or water, threatened if she left to seek medical treatment, and was then prevented from bringing criminal charges against her assailants. And they failed to anticipate the political consequences?"

Of course they voted against it. This is straight out of their sexual fantasies. They dream about raping, pillaging, impregnating women, and then denying them the right to abort the fetus. I can see Vitter's wood stiffen all the way from New York.
I wonder how many hookers Vitter played out this fantasy with? Maybe one of them will come out and tell all.

I think it was a knee jerk attempt to protect Haliburton. They are so far gone as far as partisanship goes that they simply can't imagine that anyone would propose a bill for any other reason.

Because they're stupid: they just oppose everything that comes from democrats,because they think it will score them political points. Over time, it's going to backfire.

No vision with these people. What a stupid party. For that reason alone I would be embarrassed to associate myself with the republicans.

God, I LOVE Al Franken. This is the kind of bill that Republicans have been doing for years.... Get a bill to eliminate taxes on zillion dollar estates and if any Dem voted against it, they proclaim how the Dems voted for a 'death tax'. They have been doing this for YEARS. Suddenly, Franken does something similar (although in this case, it really is a GOOD bill), and Rethugs get blindsided by it. Ha Ha Ha Ha HAHAHAHAHA. Keep it coming Al!!!

But did you read the original article in Politico that Benen got the quote out of? Of course the article isn't about what the republicans are doing wrong, but what a mistake Al Franken made to propose this bill -- the article speculates how sponsering this bill might endanger his political future. He's not even one year in to a six year term for crying out loud! I wish Politico would give it a rest -- always trying to turn everything into a disaster for democrats.

they hate al franken,
they hate women,
they loves them some corporate old white guys...just like them...and their bucks.

they blundered into a full-frontal assault on women -- unlike the stupak amendment...oh, wait, we democrats are supposed to be oh so for women's rights... i forgot...wrong script, wrong 'frame'

i can appreciate the idiocy of the repugnants that is revealed by their hate, but in this same term of congress both major parties blatantly reveal the misogyny of our society...in their own ways...

So federal funds subsidizing abortions is bad but federal funds subsidizing rape is A-OK?

Keep an eye on Franken -- he isn't just a policy wonk.

Most Senators are either professional politicians who spent their lives getting to the Senate -- often quite young, relatively -- who then think about running for President (Obama fits), or they are older, second-career people. But no matter how impressive that first career is -- Lautenberg's IT management millions, Kohl's Milwaukee Bucks, even Jim Bunning's perfect game -- there is often a sort of envy of politicians evident in the way even self-made men (and women) want to become Senators, which is reflected in the way they act in the Senate.

I don't see any of that in Franken. Maybe that's because he almost has to apologize (and certainly compensate for) the fact that his prior career was to be funny. But surely a lot of it is that his film and tv work was often painfully honest -- it's hard to truly fake it and be funny, You can't poll or focus group or frame a joke: people laugh, or they don't -- and a comic isn't somebody who says funny things, a comic is a person who says things funny. Comedy has an essential integrity. The lack of honesty is a major reason why our politics and our government often sucks so bad. Just simple honesty -- what really happened, what can we really do about it -- is essential to good politics AND policy.

That's what happened here -- Franken met the woman, and decided to do the proper thing, focused on the outrage of her plight and the actual responsibilities of the Congress. He figured it out. He didn't grandstand. They SHOULD have voice-voted it. The reason they didn't is largely because many Senators are almost literally raised not to see it as plainly as Franken did.

It may seem odd that the same perceptive skills that work for comedy are going to work in the Senate, but I'm predicting this guy will be a very effective Senator.

Barbin MD: These monsters Big Lied a nation into unleashing war. More to the point, they got away with it. The term "political consequences" is laughable when applied to them (or their "loyal opposition", for that matter). The American people have yet to face the rude truth that our nation is led by moral perverts.

Americanist - The Poles first elected president was a poet, the most celebrated person in Soviet society were the humorists, the Daily Show is the America's best news source, and a comedian is our best senator.

Humor is the last refuge of the truth.

Yeah, the Politico piece carried concern trolling to new levels of inanity. This is going to hurt Franken because it makes him look "too partisan for Minnesota." Riiiiiiight. Did any Republican ever ever think that way when there was a chance to stick it to the Dems?

The Republicans in Congress decided that they were going to slow everything to a crawl by asking for roll call votes on everything from motions to proceed to naming post offices. So be it. Democrats should help them out and offer them a "gotcha" vote every single day. Republicans hold enough disgusting positions that every member of the Dem Caucus should be provided with an amendment that Republicans will vote against that will make them look bad that would be ready to go on a moments notice.

I'll take "Party of No" for $1000, Alex!

It seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans voted against the Franken amendment simply because it was proposed by Al Franken. It did not matter what the amendment was, or what it said, or what it did. Franken could have proposed re-instating Cheney as dictator for life, and the Republicans STILL would have voted against it because 1) Franken is sitting in Norm Coleman's seat, 2) Franken is a LIBERAL!, and 3) Such a vote would surely piss off liberals and that is the true measure by which legislation should be judged.

This is going to hurt Franken because it makes him look "too partisan for Minnesota."

Unlike Michele Bachmannn.

The DoD and the Obama admin oppose the legislation also.

But Steve doesn't want you to know that.

How about a few facts to back this up?

The DoD and the Obama admin oppose the legislation also. But Steve doesn't want you to know that. Posted by: a on November 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

And what "a" doesn't want you to know is that the White House and DoD do actually support the intent of the amendment, but are concerned it isn't enforceable as written:

A White House spokesman said that the DoD opposition is overstated in the message sent to Congress. "We support the intent of the amendment, and we're working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable," said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html

Because the parties may not be privy to contracts containing these arbitration clauses that would allow the same sort of rape-without-legal-remedy to happen again, the White House and DoD are suggesting a law to eliminate these clauses altogether for government contracts.

Meanwhile, the few Republicans who went on record to explain their vote say the oppose it because they don't like lawsuits.

Funny what a difference a little context can make.

I can see the campaign ads in 2010 and 2012: "Senator [ ] is soft on rape." It's time to give these guys some of their own medicine and watch them squirm.

Even better, the lesson the Rethugs take away is "next time, we'll make sure it's a voice vote".

"And several aides said that Republicans are engaged in an internal blame game about why they agreed to a roll-call vote on the measure, rather than a simple voice vote that would have allowed the opposing senators to duck criticism."

Nice.

Republicans are not upset that they voted to give amnesty to gang-rapists. They are upset that they did so on the record, instead of a voice vote, because now they won't be able to "duck criticism".

So if they could do it all over again they'd still side with the rapists, but they'd do it anonymously.

Just to be clear: a voice vote means unanimous consent, so they'd all have claimed to be FOR it -- and, in effect, that'd have been true.

The peculiar thing about this vote is that the Republicans are essentially claiming that they CONSIDERED telling Reid the Franken amendment should pass unanimously, by voice vote, but then DECIDED to let the Democrats have a recorded vote, and THEN decided to vote against it.

Knowing they were gonna lose.

It's like they told the Majority Leader: Go ahead, set our hair on fire -- we've got hammers handy.

The DOD does not support this amendment. The President does not support this amendment. And despite the comment upthread, saying someone supports its INTENT (rather than what it actually says as drafted in statutory language and what it would actually do if enacted) is a lot like saying "if I was a hell of a lot more handsome, I'd be Brad Pitt." We need less, not more, message politics. Message politics is what's killing our system of government. Cheerleaders like Steve (and his counterparts on the other side at FOX) are the gravediggers.

The drawback of a strategy of opposition to whatever your opponent proposes . . . Well done, Franken. We need a whole series of bills like this, that no sane person would possibly oppose, but the GOP will.

Pat, you are asking for unilateral disarmament. Convince the side with the least good faith to deescalate, then perhaps we can reach a deal. In the meantime, we should beat them over the head and face with message politics until they scream uncle.

How is not spending tax dollars on mercenary organizations that cover-up rape "message politics"?

Democrats and Progressives should be all over this pattern of behavior from Republicans- their repeated disregard and disrespect for women and women's rights- yet, it's been remarkably quiet. Republicans are guilty of failing to protect a woman's right to sue for gang rape, protecting discrimminatory health insurance company policies against women, and further restricting women's reproductive rights.

The 30 white Republican men who "failed to anticipate the policial consequences" are still living in the 1950s. It's time for them to feel the full rath of women (51% of voters). It's time for the next phase of the Women's Movement, Ladies!

And they failed to anticipate the political consequences?"

It really boggles the imagination, doesn't it? If we could figure out why they got blind sided, we could use it to do it again and again. I can think of all sorts of reasons, most of them snarky, but seriously it would be good to get into their heads and find out what actually they were thinking. It seems that whatever it was is basic to their thought processes so it will be difficult to change in the future. That means we can use it in other situations.

We need less, not more, message politics. Message politics is what's killing our system of government.

I have a feeling that Jamie Leigh Jones considers this to be something a little more than "message politics." But, hey, as long as you can reduce the protection of crime victims down to mere "message politics," you'll never actually have to do anything about the massive contractor fraud, waste and abuse in Iraq that has electrocuted 18 Americans to death, among many, many other examples. Dismissing efforts to stop that fraud, waste and abuse as "message politics" is a pretty good way to prevent KBR and other negligent and criminal contractors from actually suffering any consequences.

"...it would be good to get into their heads and find out what actually they were thinking..."

It isn't that complicated: they thought of this as contract law.

There IS a technical problem with Franken's approach, because contracts are negotiated rather than legislated. It's not a very strong objection, because Congress can simply mandate that Federal contractors must do something in the future, which is more or less what Franken's amendment directs. These same Republicans are eager to mandate all kinds of rules for Federal contracts over other issues.

But it's clear that a combination of Halliburton, DoD staff, former Bush advisers and the general Republican antipathy to anything Democratic -- and to Franken in particular, whom they underestimated -- made 'em delude themselves into the hallucination that if THEY thought of the Franken amendment as contract law, then that's what it was, and how it would play in the media.

It's the same thing I keep telling you guys: it's a mistake to assume that your adversaries are really as stupid as you think they are.