http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338602/-Steve-Southerland-explains-badly-why-we-voted-against-the-Violence-Against-Women-Act?detail=email
Rep. Steve Southerland, the Florida Republican who gained infamy with his men-only fundraising ("tell the misses not to wait up") and lame defense of his men-only fundraising ("Listen: Has Gwen Graham ever been to a lingerie shower? Ask her.") is still explaining, badly, his record. In particular, his vote against the Violence Against Women Act. Here's his story: he was blindsided by the bill when it landed on the House floor from the Senate. And because he didn't have time to read it, he voted against it.
In a sit-down with the editorial board of the Tallahassee Democrat last week, Southerland suggested the scheduling of the vote was a "political maneuver," and said he voted 'no' because "I'm not going to allow a topic of such great importance be hijacked over someone wanting to score political points." […]
During his meeting with the Tallahassee Democrat, Southerland noted that he had twice before voted to reauthorize VAWA, but that the Senate version of the law came down for a vote in the House with no warning. He decried this as a "political maneuver."
"The bill that was put on the floor, the last VAWA vote, came straight from the Senate, was thrown on the floor. It was a surprise, it wasn't given to us in a—there was no forecast that that bill was coming," he said.
No warning at all! Except the whole part about the Senate having passed it and that being kind of a big news story because of the conflict between the House Republicans' version of the bill, which didn't protect Native-American women or women in same-sex couples or undocumented women, and there had been kind of a big fight between the House and the Senate over their competing versions of the bill for almost a year.
his explanation just implicated the war on women denial to be false note where he says the house version left out 2/3rd's of the women in America that would be the republican controlled house. as to a warning what would he have done and why would he need a warning to protect women against violence is self explanatory you are either for it or against, warning yeah not even a barely fair excuse.
but more republican "PRINCIPLES" formerly known as "VALUES", than a legitimate excuse wait there is no legitimate excuse not to support violence against women unless you and your gang are perpetrators??????? that sign must be a not so clever ruse.
