Why Do Ted Cruz and Rand Paul Support Kirsten Gillibrand’s Sexual Assault Bill? The four most-plausi

[DonViejo]

Why Do Ted Cruz and Rand Paul Support Kirsten Gillibrand’s Sexual Assault Bill?
The four most-plausible theories

BY NORA CAPLAN-BRICKER

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand supports the right to abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and comprehensive immigration reform. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul do not. But in the most pitched battled of Gillibrand’s legislative career, her effort to reform the military justice system and combat sexual assault, these right-leaning mavericks have been among the senator from New York’s most outspoken allies. What gives?

A little background on the bill: Gillibrand believes the military’s current practice—in which commanders decide which criminal complaints from their subordinates go to trial, including cases of sexual assault—has discouraged victims from coming forward. In surveys, those who did speak out say they have been met with retribution and inaction. Under Gillibrand’s proposal, a trained prosecutor, within the military but outside the chain of command for both the victim and the perpetrator, would decide which cases go to trial. Though the impetus for the bill was sexual assault (the Pentagon estimates 26,000 service members were assaulted in 2012), the new system would apply to all crimes punishable by a year or more in prison.

Gillibrand’s bill, which she introduced as a standalone when it became apparent that it would not make it into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as an amendment, has put her at loggerheads with some of the Senate’s most venerable liberals. Her opponents include Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Claire McCaskill, another committee member who has her own bill to combat sexual assault—and who has said she will filibuster her colleague’s proposal. Meanwhile, 54 senators, nine of them Republicans, have publicly backed the bill. Gillibrand’s supporters estimate at least a handful of other lawmakers are privately sold on the measure, meaning it may inch past the 60-vote threshold.

Long before Gillibrand had 54 lawmakers behind her, though, she had Paul and Cruz. Here are a few theories about why they teamed up with the rising liberal star.

-snip-

more
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116576/military-sexual-assault-why-cruz-and-paul-support-gillibrands-bill

[bemildred]

1. Yep.

Party affiliation doesn't tell you much when it comes to the Pentagon, or with any issues where there is lots of money involved.

[Z-RO]

2. I don't agree. Sexual assault is primarily an abuse of women. The GOP hates women.

And that includes the self-loathing females in the GOP (and on FOX). Money has nothing to do with it. The game is power. Men run the show and women should be barefoot and pregnant in a house with dirt floors, well, at least that's how the GOP sees it. Women on FOX should be in short skirts and spectator pumps, oh, and with way too much makeup and silly hair.

Yes, party affiliation DOES tell you much. There's no excuse for sexual assault and having to report to your superior ranking officer is rediculous because most of the assaults seem to COME from said ranking officers. Women are at least equal, if not superior to men. An independent oversight member is way overdue.

[bemildred]

3. Fine, disagree. nt

[Z-RO]

4. Don't you think an independent oversight body is preferable than the CO of an abuse victim?

As it is, women (and some men) have to go through chain of command and often that "chain" involves the abuser. That has to change.

[bemildred]

5. Why yes, I do. Indeed. Why do you ask? nt

[bemildred]

7. I think you thought I was talking about Kirsten when I was talking about Ted and Rand.

But they are they guys whose position needs to be explained, like in the subject line.

[bemildred]

9. No problem. nt