Comments on: Editorial: Violence Against Women Act

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:13:24 +0000

Chuck, since you are not “blindly partisan” could you explain why you characterize the issue of trying to protect domestic abuse victims who happen to be immigrants, even illegal immigrants, is “liberals tried to tie immigration law that “might allow some illegal immigrants to gain visas”to this” in your world? Should we just call it the Violence against Some Women Act?

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:52:47 +0000

Yeah Chuck, but you have the decided honor of not being “blindly partisan” so only one side is “wrong”, right?

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 02:16:53 +0000

So let me get this straight. The liberals tried to tie immigration law that “might allow some illegal immigrants to gain visas”to this, thinking they could back-door it through because republicans would be scared to oppose it for fear of alienating women in and election year and, surprise, surprise, when the republicans stuck to their principles and refused to let the dems use the women’s issue as a shield to sneak immigration in the backdoor, the libs are offended and attack Cuccinelli? I guess it’s good political strategy but it is also a great example of what’s wrong with our government and the blindly partisan it represents.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:44:39 +0000

Wow.

By: Saintbridge

Saintbridge — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:02:47 +0000

Absolutely reprehensible, but entirely expected from this opportunistic blowhard.

By: garc

garc — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:19:15 +0000

But of course there’s no “war against women” on the right, right?