Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): a VAWA letter to the editor (March 8, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): still another VAWA letter to the editor (March 8, 2013)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) had a (sort of) defender in a letter to the editor [subscription required] in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal. We’re not quite sure. It could just be performance art:

4/2/2013 10:18:00 PM

Editor not fair to Hartzler

Letter to the Editor

This letter is in response to your March 11, 2013 editorial, again taking U. S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler to task for her votes on the Violence Against Women Act because you made a mistake in “reading the message” in a press release. I thought Peggy Nuckles’ cogent March 7 letter to the editor, in which she advised, “You owe her an apology,” would have straightened you out. Not so.

[….]

Leave Harry Truman out of it. He was a principled president. He would disagree with your baseless attacks against Vicky Hartzler.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Now those republicans sure love them some Harry Truman (D), don’t they?

Harry Truman, on republicans:

Address at the State Capitol in Denver  

September 20, 1948

….When I talk to you here today about Republicans, I am talking about the party that gets most of its campaign funds from the special interests in Wall Street. I am talking to you about the party that gave us the phony boom of the 1920’s, and the Hoover depression which followed it. I am talking to you about the party that gave us that Republican 80th Congress.

The Republican Party today is controlled by silent and cunning men who have a dangerous lust for power and privilege. The Republican Party is fundamentally the party of privilege. These men are now reaching out for control of the country and its resources….

Heh.

The salient point in the March 7, 2013 letter to the editor from Peggy Nuckles (in part)?:

….Rep. Hartzler set her priorities and voted according to her beliefs. And you made it sound like she thought protecting women from violence was more important than her hatred of gays. You owe her an apology….

[emphasis added]

That there is a “cogent” letter.

Sarcasm can oftentimes escape the irony impaired.

Another letter to the editor [subscription required], in today’s Sedalia Democrat:

[….]

What’s wrong with this press release dated February 28, 2013, posted on her official website and sent out to newspapers across the 4th Congressional District of Missouri?

From US Representative Vicky Hartzler, “View from the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of February 25 – March 1, 2013.” – “Hartzler Votes to Protect Women from Acts of Violence – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)… “I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “I supported legislation this week…..”

What’s wrong?  She voted AGAINST it, not FOR it (see official Congressional voting record at http://www.govtrack.us). And if you are a female, or love one, she voted against you and your loved ones.

“I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler.  Uhmmm, apparently not.

From the editor of Warrensburg’s Daily Star-Journal (printed this week):  “The Daily Star-Journal did not realize that what Hartzler’s release called “the Violence Against Women Act” in fact is not what is destined to become law.  In the release, she makes no mention that she did not vote for what would become law and, coupled with the deadline timing, what conclusion could be drawn other than that she voted for what would become law?……I trusted…..I regret that error.”

Exactly.

Why would Hartzler, or anyone for that matter, vote NO on renewing the Violence Against Women Act?  Shouldn’t all women of America be protected? And, why would her press release try to make you think that she voted to protect women when in fact she didn’t?

[….]

[with permission of the author]

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): a VAWA letter to the editor (March 8, 2013)

A letter to the editor [subscription required] in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

I had to chuckle when I saw the article carried by The Daily Star-Journal about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

[….]

Vicky Hartzler, must have winced if she read this article because it seamlessly transitioned to the next paragraph in which she praised the act and took credit for helping it pass. You made it sound like Rep. Hartzler helped codify the law to protect gays and lesbians from domestic abuse.

[….]

When it looked like the version of the bill that she supported would fail and the version that protected gays and lesbians would pass, Ms. Hartzler made her choice. She would rather that no victim of domestic violence receive help from the federal government if lesbians were going to be included in that group. She voted no.

Rep. Hartzler set her priorities and voted according to her beliefs. And you made it sound like she thought protecting women from violence was more important than her hatred of gays. You owe her an apology.

[….]

[with permission of the author]

Public political sarcasm is definitely a high art form.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Michael Bersin has beautifully documented Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s attempt to throw dust in her constituents eyes when it comes to her vote against the Violence Against Women Act. However, I just can’t resist sharing Steve Benen’s response to the dishonesty of Hartzler and the handful of GOP reps who decided to employ the same tactic:

What happened to far-right conservatives having the courage of their convictions? If they opposed the Violence Against Women Act and felt the need to vote against it, then why pretend otherwise? Why try to deceive the public instead of explaining why they opposed the legislation?

Extremism is disconcerting, but by some measures, cowardice is worse.

Why indeed? Do Hartzler et al. think it’s their constituents who are dumb or are they as dumb as spit themselves? To paraphrase Benen, I’d say that cowardice is one thing, but the attitude toward the truth that these folks exhibit is even worse yet, although it’s sadly far too typical of what we’ve seen from most GOP politicians in recent years.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Today, from Yael T. Abouhalkah at the Kansas City Star:

Vicky Hartzler’s deception on Violence Against Women Act

Yael T. Abouhalkah

Poor Vicky Hartzler. The Missouri congresswoman has such little respect for her constituents that she will try to blatantly mislead them.

Or, more accurately, she’s willing to try to deceive them, to lie to them.

Hartzler last week voted against the version of the Violence Against Women Act that passed in Congress and went to President Barack Obama for his signature.

[….]

So to sum up, Hartzler voted for a weak version of the Violence Against Women Act.

She knew it wouldn’t pass. Everyone knew it wouldn’t pass.

So when it failed, Hartzler had the opportunity to vote for a stronger version of the Violence Against Women Act.

She failed to do so.

Despite Hartzler’s opposition to a bill that protects women against violence, this version of the bill actually passed.

It will become law – without Hartzler’s support.

[….]

As if anyone’s surprised?

A press release from Representative Hartzler’s congressional web site:

….The House version failed, however, and the more controversial Senate version passed. It contains provisions which many view as unconstitutional regarding tribal jurisdictions, which could jeopardize Indian women’s safety by overturning convictions against those who committed violence against these women. It excludes Catholic Charities from providing services to victims of sexual trafficking, even though this organization has been one of the premier providers of services and has helped thousands of young victims. It also doesn’t contain the accouontability [sic] provisions of the House version to ensure domestic violence grants go to the victims, not bureaucrats. For these reasons, I could not support the Senate version. It did pass, however, and is being sent to the President’s desk. While I opposed the controversial new sections, I am glad the other positive provisions are being renewed and that continued help will be sent to women and children in need….

[emphasis added]

Uh, Representative Hartzler (r) didn’t tell us that she voted against the final version of the bill when she issued that first press release:

Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence

Feb 28, 2013

[….]

“I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “The House version of VAWA supports assistance to adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

[….]

[emphasis added]

It must all depend on what your definition of “controversial” is:

….Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin and a victim of domestic and sexual violence herself, spoke passionately about the need to pass the Senate’s reauthorization bill.

“I pray that this body will do as the Senate has done and come together as one to protect all women from violence,” Ms. Moore said. “As I think about the L.G.B.T. victims who are not here, the native women who are not here, the immigrants who aren’t in this bill, I would say, as Sojourner Truth would say, ‘Ain’t they women?'”

“Ain’t they women?” she repeated, emphatically….

Well, ain’t they women?

Not necessarily. Either one.

….Honest…I ran out of gas. I…I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! It wasn’t my fault, I swear….

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [file photo]

An editorial in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal (subscription required):

3/3/2013 6:51:00 PM

Actually, Rep. Hartzler voted against act

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

The Daily Star-Journal newsroom operates with a degree of trust in the sources with whom the newspaper works, but not blind trust, and the degree of trust the newspaper offers relates directly to the credibility of sources, often based on their positions.

[….]

Based on trust, The Star-Journal accepted as fact, under the headline “Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence,” the following three paragraphs in a press release last week from U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s office:

[….]

In the release, she makes no mention that she did not vote for what would become law and, coupled with the deadline timing, what conclusion could be drawn other than that she voted for what would become law?

[….]

I received a call from Hartzler’s office and I thanked the person for the release, saying something to the extent that the release appeared to cover all of the bases. The newspaper heard nothing to suggest the release meant anything other than what the release said: Hartlzer voted for the act.

[….]

I hope this information answers the question of how the mistake occurred.

I trusted…

I regret that error.

It’s generally not a good idea for people holding public office to upset people who buy ink by the barrel.

In the Columbia Daily Tribune:

Senate version of anti-violence measure passes

Hartzler voted for House bill.

By Rudi Keller

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Fourth District Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler on Thursday put out a news release touting her vote in favor of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but the release failed to mention that the bill she supported did not pass.

The House did pass a version of the law, which had already received bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate and is now awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature. Hartzler’s news release did not mention that bill or that she voted against it….

We await more spin from Representative Hartzler (r).

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [file photo]

A press release from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):

Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence

Feb 28, 2013

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – legislation that provides vital protection for vulnerable women and children.

“I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “The House version of VAWA supports assistance to adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

“Violence against women, in all its forms, is unacceptable,” added Hartzler. “I support efforts to prosecute to the full extent of the law all those who engage in these deplorable acts of abuse and violence. This legislation provides states with the resources needed to combat domestic violence and allocates funding to college campuses for safety programs – all while ensuring no one is discriminated against. The House version of the Violence Against Women Act protects women, provides funding for the Rural Grant Program, and reauthorizes the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. As a former board member of CASA, I understand how important it is to provide support for abused children and ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

Congresswoman Hartzler, who resides in Cass County, serves on the House Budget, Armed Services, and Agriculture Committees.

[emphasis added]

What?

Uh, no, Representative Hartzler (r) didn’t vote for the successfully passed legislation:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 55

S 47      RECORDED VOTE      28-Feb-2013      11:56 AM

     QUESTION:  On Passage

     BILL TITLE: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

—- AYES    286 —

Clay

Cleaver

—- NOES    138 —

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Long

Luetkemeyer

Wagner

—- NOT VOTING    7 —

[emphasis added]

While Representative Hartzler (r) did vote for a failed (and watered down) substitute, voting against final passage of the successful version of the bill doesn’t constitute support for it in anyone’s book.

Both Representative Ann Wagner (r) and Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) issued press releases using the phrase “all women” after they voted against final passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Spin.

Lewis Carroll would be proud.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

From Representative Ann Wagner (r):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

February 28, 2013

[….]

WASHINGTON , D.C. – Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO) today issued the following statement after voting for the House amendment to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013:

“Today I was pleased to stand up for all women who are victims of violence and abuse.  As a result, I voted for the strongest bill that would protect all women from acts of violence and help law enforcement prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.  I am committed to protecting all women from domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.  This is not a political issue and Senate and House Democrats who have chosen to politicize the safety of women in the United States should be ashamed.  This is exactly what is wrong with Washington and why the American people no longer trust what comes out of Congress.  The people of Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District expect leaders to lead and get the job done and that is what I will continue to do.”

###

[emphasis added]

“…all women…”

Uh, except Representative Wagner(r) voted against the bill:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 55

S 47      RECORDED VOTE      28-Feb-2013      11:56 AM

     QUESTION:  On Passage

     BILL TITLE: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

—- AYES    286 —

Clay

Cleaver

—- NOES    138 —

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Long

Luetkemeyer

Wagner

—- NOT VOTING    7 —

[emphasis added]

Unless, of course, LGBT women and Native American women aren’t corporations women.

….Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin and a victim of domestic and sexual violence herself, spoke passionately about the need to pass the Senate’s reauthorization bill.

“I pray that this body will do as the Senate has done and come together as one to protect all women from violence,” Ms. Moore said. “As I think about the L.G.B.T. victims who are not here, the native women who are not here, the immigrants who aren’t in this bill, I would say, as Sojourner Truth would say, ‘Ain’t they women?'”

“Ain’t they women?” she repeated, emphatically….

Indeed.

In 2011:

“….Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!….”

Today, in Congress:

….In a strong, bipartisan vote, the House has just voted 286-138 for S. 47, a strong, bipartisan bill that reauthorizes the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)….

The recorded vote:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 55

S 47      RECORDED VOTE      28-Feb-2013      11:56 AM

     QUESTION:  On Passage

     BILL TITLE: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

—- AYES    286 —

Clay

Cleaver

—- NOES    138 —

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Long

Luetkemeyer

Wagner

—- NOT VOTING    7 —

Can corporations be gay? Just asking.

For right wingnut teabaggers “bipartisanship” is just another word for everything left to lose.

Update:

Matt Canter ‏@mattcanter

GOP finally trying 2 put VAWA behind them, & the last folks willing 2 go down w the burning ship are the party’s potential Senate recruits. 3:20 PM – Feb 28, 2013

Heh. I’d pay to watch that primary.