J.D. Prose – 3/2/13

This page was last updated on March 8, 2013.

Voting for anti-violence bill before voting against it; J.D. Prose; Beaver County Times; March 2, 2013. The title in the print version was Anti-violence bill: Are we for or against it?

According to his Twitter page, Mr. Prose is a self-described “Surly progressive.” As you read this opinion column and his Twitter “tweets,” keep in mind Mr. Prose wears at least one other hat for the BCT. In addition to being an entertainer/pundit, Mr. Prose is a part-time reporter covering political stories. Ask yourself this. When a pundit gives his political opinions in one part of the paper, can he be trusted to report politics objectively elsewhere in the paper? After all, would a person whose opinion is 1+1 equals 3 report 1+1 really equals 2? Does he have a “Chinese wall” in his head to keep his opinions from bleeding into his reporting? (You may recall NPR claimed it fired Juan Williams for doing exactly what Mr. Prose does.) If it can get worse than that, Mr. Prose has made name-calling and personal attacks a foundation of his columns. If pushed, I’d be willing to bet Mr. Prose would try to excuse his writing by claiming he’s paid to be controversial and stir debate. The problem is, you don’t need to get into name-calling and personal attacks to accomplish those goals.

You can find the archive of my Prose column critiques here.

Below is a critique of portions of this column.

“Sometimes there’s just way too much to get to and not enough space to get to it. So, without further ado, let’s shine a light on what some of our esteemed (cough, cough) and respected (cough, cough, cough) political leaders are up to.

“Here’s a hint: It’s embarrassing.

“We don’t like beating up on freshman GOP U.S. Rep. Keith Rothfus, but, man, he’s making it really, really easy. First, Keith voted not once, but twice against Hurricane Sandy emergency funding. Yeah, twice.”

[RWC] I covered this topic in a critique of a previous Prose column.

“On Thursday, Rothfus made it a trifecta by voting against the Violence Against Women Act, which funds domestic-abuse organizations and which has been extended several times since its 1994 passage. That, however, was before the Teapublicans highjacked the GOP and steered it toward Crazy Town.”

[RWC] Folks, this observation is long overdue and I apologize for not noticing a lot sooner. It appears someone at the BCT eventually took Mr. Prose to the woodshed for his use of the term “teabagger.” Though Mr. Prose used the term about 20 times the previous two years, it looks like its last appearance was in a November 2011 column. Though he used it before, it appears Mr. Prose started using “Teapublican” exclusively since the November 2011 piece.

“Extended several times” means twice, in 2000 and 2005. Since at least 2005, the title of the VAWA has been nonsense. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H. R. 3402) includes the following non-exclusivity clause: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title.” A more honest title would be the Violence Against Men and Women Act.

Mr. Prose apparently wants readers to believe the existing VAWA was no longer in effect. Though VAWA spending “needed” to be reauthorized beginning with fiscal year 2012, the VAWA kept getting funded like all other programs because of the continuing resolutions Congress has been passing the last few years in lieu of real budgets. The Democrat-led Senate has not passed a budget bill since April 2009.

“House right-wingers balked at a Senate version of the VAWA that included protections for (gasp) immigrant and American Indian women and those in the LGBT community. That’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender in case you were wondering. Not exactly the Teapublican constituency we’d imagine.”

[RWC] You’ll find Mr. Prose failed to note something very important. The VAWA as it existed and the newer version for which Mr. Rothfus voted didn’t exclude “protections for (gasp) immigrant and American Indian women and those in the LGBT community.” Mentioning this, of course, would undercut Mr. Prose’s attack on Mr. Rothfus and other Republicans who voted as he did.

You’ll find “(gasp) immigrant” is Prosespeak for illegal alien. According to The New York Times, the VAWA Mr. Prose likes “would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas.” To “allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas” don’t you have to be giving some already? This observation would appear to indicate illegal aliens were already covered by the existing VAWA.

Here’s the problem with specifying groups covered by any law. The more specific a law gets about who is covered, the more likely it is the law will be interpreted to exclude those not specifically mentioned. For example, if a law specifically says blue-eyed, gray-haired men are covered, does it mean brown-haired men are not? This, of course, becomes an opportunity for someone to exploit politically down the road. Why, then, did Democrats insist on enumerating covered groups? Pure politics. First, it allowed Democrats to go to the specified “victim” groups and say “see, we care, so keep voting for us.” Second, Democrats knew Republicans would balk at any provision intended to benefit illegal aliens. Third, the group enumeration promoted the “divide and conquer” tactic, something that appears to be a favorite of at least one of our local lefty leaders.

What Mr. Prose never addresses is the propriety of the VAWA. If there were a need for such a law, it’s not a federal issue. The truth is, the VAWA is just another politics-driven bill to funnel federal taxpayer dollars to predominantly left-leaning victim groups who then lobby the same politicians for even more money later. You can usually identify these bills by their titles; the titles make it difficult for some to oppose. The titles are also intended to make these things wedge issues. For example, if you don’t support so-called “hate” laws, you’re a hate monger. In this case, if you oppose the VAWA as written for perfectly legitimate reasons, you’re accused of not opposing “Violence Against Women.” It’s a ridiculous accusation, of course, but it sticks with too many of us.

“Rothfus’ office sent out a press release after the VAWA vote with the disingenuous headline of ‘Rothfus votes to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act.’ Mmmmm. Not exactly.

“He voted FOR the Teapublican version that stripped protections approved by the Senate, which failed, but then voted AGAINST the Senate version, which passed the House 286-138 with 87 GOPers supporting it.”

[RWC] It was Mr. Prose who was “disingenuous.” You will find the press release says which bill Rep. Rothfus voted for and which he opposed. The bill (S. 47 with H. AMDT. 23 sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers) Mr. Rothfus supported was a reauthorization of the existing VAWA. Though called a “reauthorization,” the bill (S. 47) that passed was an expansion of the VAWA and Mr. Prose knows it. In other words, Mr. Prose is bashing Mr. Rothfus for voting to keep the version (or close to it) of the VAWA we’ve been using for just over seven years.

“Rothfus had some company because GOP U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy did the same thing and released a statement with the exact same headline.

“In his release, Rothfus said the passed Senate version ‘raises constitutional questions’ that could deprive ‘certain Americans’ of their rights. We’re sure abused women everywhere appreciate the Teapublican constitutional scholars’ concerns.”

[RWC] As noted above, the existing VAWA was still in effect, covering “abused women everywhere” as it had for the previous seven years.

If the existing VAWA was so bad for “abused [men and] women everywhere,” where were Democrats before now? President Obama had significant Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress for two years (2009-2010), including a period with a filibuster-proof Senate. As we saw with Obamacare, Republicans couldn’t stop anything Mr. Obama wanted even when not a single Republican voted for it.

In the BCT editorial “Death to Prince Charming,” author Kirsten Kennedy wrote, “It is demeaning and hollow to look at women as a group that needs to be protected. Mothers, daughters and sisters have the will and the sense to provide security.” What changed since late January?

“EASY MARK

“Don’t worry, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Critz is no longer unemployed. It was announced last week that he’s going to be a senior vice president for EIS Solutions, a Colorado-based consulting firm for energy companies (i.e., government affairs, lobbying, etc.) for which his campaign strategist Mike Mikus works as eastern region vice president.

“Anyway, Democratic sources have told us that Critz is definitely interested in a rematch with Rothfus in 2014, but Mark hasn’t publicly said anything. At this point, it’s informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless.

“However, the prospect of a Critz-Rothfus rematch has seemingly gotten the National Republican Congressional Committee worried because it sent out an email blasting the non-candidate Critz for becoming ‘a powerful lobbyist’ who will ‘fight for powerful special interests.’

“So, Republicans are now attacking a private citizen for pursuing gainful employment working with energy companies who want to free America from the shackles of foreign oil? Damn socialists.”

[RWC] All I can guess is the NRCC chose to follow Democrat policy. Bob Schmetzer, VP of Beaver County Reds (aka BC Blue), also wasn’t happy when he wrote, “Where are the Democrats?” on his Facebook page.

“MEA CULPA

“Last week, we wrote that neither Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink of Beaver Falls, jailed former state Rep. Mike Veon’s former district director, nor Brett Cott, Veon’s former aide/political operations chief, had served time while appealing their BonusGate convictions in 2010, convictions that were upheld a few weeks ago.

“Apparently, though, Cott did do time — 16 months, in fact — his wife, Teresa Candori, told us in an email. We will gladly correct that error.”

[RWC] First, a politics pundit allegedly gets his facts wrong in one of the biggest local/commonwealth political scandals in recent years. Second, the same pundit apparently accepts an e-mail correction from an involved party without mentioning if he corroborated the e-mail with an authoritative source. Then again, Mr. Prose wrote he “will gladly correct that error,” not that he “had corrected that error.” Perhaps Mr. Prose is checking the facts. (Now, now. Stop laughing.)