In opposing the Violence Against Women Act — a bill whose opposition from conservative Republicans gave Democrats political juice in 2012 to paint the party as out-of-touch with women — Rubio may have left himself vulnerable to future Democratic attacks by siding clearly with the tea party wing of the GOP.
Rubio explained his vote Tuesday in a statement, claiming he could not support expansions to the original and now expired law drafted in 1994.
“Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences. Specifically, this bill would mandate the diversion of a portion of funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, although there’s no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions,” Rubio’s statement read. “These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.”
It’s important to note that Rubio and Paul differ on foreign policy issues. While both men might side with fellow Republicans in opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of Defense, for example, Paul espouses a largely isolationist foreign policy position that diverges from Rubio’s more establishment take on international affairs.
Roll Call has launched a new feature, Hill Navigator, to advise congressional staffers and would-be staffers on how to manage workplace issues on Capitol Hill. Please send us your questions anything from office etiquette, to handling awkward moments, to what happens when the work life gets too personal. Submissions will be treated anonymously.