Latest ‘bright idea’ for Republicans hits a new low

>>> if you have any new ideas on how to resuscitate the grand old party, republicans gathered in charlotte would love to hear from you because right now this is what they've got. a republican legislator in new mexico who has proposed a law that would jail any woman who has an abortion after becoming pregnant during a sexual assault . the reason, well, she says that would be tampering with evidence. joining us now, as speechless as myself, hopefully not, ari melber, correspondent for "the nation" and my colleague chrkrystal ball. they have no ideas on jobs, nothing to say about fixing immigration, but they want to criminalize abortion. are they legislating themselves into history as it were, into the backside of history?

>> so farther, and this measure doesn't stand alone . you know, republicans in congress have also introduced legislation to defund planned parenthood , an organization that provides all sorts of services. abortion being the least of them. to women across the country. and i think what they've gotten used to is an environment where they could get away with these things and no one would really make note but that has changed. 2011 was a bad year, a landmark year in a bad way in that we saw the largest number of restrictions on women's reproductive rights pass in state legislatures across the country and the response to that has been a backlash and a lot more attention paid to the type of legislation like what you're talking about here. so they're not going to be able to get away with it anymore.

>> ari, you're a lawyer. i mean, what are these people suggesting? that somehow the woman who has already been the victim of a sexual assault should keep the child as evidence of the original crime?

>> well, sb 206, this bill, is basically trying to read in an attack on abortion into the laws of evidence and preserving or tampering with evidence which can be a heavily restricted in the criminal context. i don't think the law is -- the legislation here is as bad as people said. it refers to an intent to destroy, quote, evidence of the crime. all that really means is if someone was a perpetrator in a rape and then sought to compel or facilitate, that's the language in the bill, compel for facilitate an abortion, that would be an extra charge against them. so i don't think contrary so some of the criticism, my reading of the law is not na this targets victims. the problem here is to echo what crystal said, the problem is this constant, sneaky and anti-female attempt to make everything about restricting what is under the law a constitutional right. so my point here is not that this is good law. i would never vote for something like this if i was in the new mexico legislature. it reads so awkwardly because it's not an area that should have anything to do with the right to make those decisions yurds as a woman.

>> okay. well, the gop has had a number of different ideas put forward recently, and here we have another one from bobby jindal who describes how he would reduce government bureaucracy.

>> we would have about a fourth of the buildings we have in washington, half of the government workers we've got in washington. we would replace most of its bureaucracy with a handful of good websites.

>> we'd replace government with a handful of good websites. what is that man talking about? that's a governor.

>> he should be delighted then to know that the president -- that government workers have decreased by 600,000 under this president. he should be delighted by that. i mean, it's an absurd proposition, and that's not to say that our bureaucracy is perfect, but they love to make government bureaucrats these evil do nothings, when, in fact, they provide vital services to the country. now, do you want to change the system so that there's more incentives to perform better, streamline efficiencies? sure. but the idea you're going to wipe out, you know, the department of agricultural and just replace it with a website is patently absurd.

>> ari, the gop does have a savior in the form of newt gingrich , and he has said that the party should not be angrily persistent nor repressively persistent, but happily persistent. now that sounds to me like good advice if you're covering with something like constipation, but the idea that that is the way forward ? that's the newt gingrich idea, happy persistence.

>> look, there's a long tradition of the happy warrior in american politics , but you have to be happily fighting for something that is clear, that is just, that is right, that people think will broadly improve their lives. and i think the problem that you've are a take lated and you made a good point in the first segment i want to underscore is this idea that the republican are looking to come up with something to sell the public after losing this election while also looking to get the public out of the voting process for them, right? this is fundamental. now, it sounds i'm just attacking them. no, you hit on something very fundamentally, something people understand because they remember it in all the different ways that there was voter disenfranchisement.

>> we discussed it repeatedly.

>> they are not getting past it yet, and it's going to be a long time coming. i think the core problem here is the solutions that they have offered, whether it is something silly like, yes, we'll replace police with websites, okay, we'll replace public workers and teachers with websites, or the grand victories they have had that didn't work out. let's remember fiscal cliff, cutting government as krystal was pointing out, more than we already have, was something republicans had to get up and say we didn't mean it, we don't want it, it's too fast, it's bad for the economy. that panic we had was actually a failing of the core ideological promise they made in november.

>> and to that point on economics, krystal , paul ryan to "the wall street journal " says, "the electorate did not reject our principles at the election."

>> okay.

>> what did the electorate say then? they didn't like the way he looked? they didn't believe his marathon lies.

>> they didn't like the obama phone they were given and the gifts they got from the president.

>> what is this man talking about?

>> paul ryan did say things like urban voters. he has that same view that mitt romney does about the 47% being takers and getting gifts from the government. that is his view, and so as long as you have that core understanding among paul ryan , who is supposed to be a leader of the republican party , they are not going to be able to evolve. they might be able to put on a happy smiley face according to newt gingrich , but they're not going to be able to evolve and come to grips with the reality of the fact that their ideology was and is still being rejected by the american electorate.

>> ari melber, krystal ball, thanks.