They voted against VAWA, but some Republicans take credit for it

>>> we are back. 138 house republicans voted against the violence against women act last month. some of those no votes are now hoping the public forgets where they stand. congressman steve king of iowa proudly proclaims on his website, king votes in support of violence against women act . king says he understands the importance of reauthorizing this law. but king didn't vote for the bill that the president of the united states signed into law. no it was steve king who voted for the house gop's version of the bill, a watered down alternative which left protections out of the key groups of people that the republican bill never made it out of the house. just kind of a minor detail. then congresswoman vicki hartzler. she, of course, another no vote. she boasts on her website that she voted to protect women from acts of violence. but just like steve king , hartzler voted for the republican bill that went nowhere. nvd n and not the bill that passed the senate and signed by president obama . she told mcclatchy newspapers there wasn't any intention to deceive here. hartzler and king aren't alone. as the blog points out, several house republicans did the same thing. these ones voted against it and are taking credit for it and hope you the public don't see anything wrong with this. let's turn to michelle goldberg . also republican strategist susan del pecrio and karen finney. susan , got to ask you first, i mean, what's going on here? is this a communication problem here? you know, why would the republicans pull a stunt like this.

>> i don't know why a handful of republicans would decide to do this. frankly, you should be proud of every vote you take in congress and you should stand up for it. and what they are doing is downright cowardly. if you voted against it, say why you voted against it. there's nothing wrong with that. but taking that vote was -- taking that vote and manipulating the day the president signed it was just wrong, plain and simple.

>> but here's the thing. this, i believe, why john boehner allowed the vote to proceed as it did. remember, we were all scratching our heads thinking, wow, has john boehner turned a new leaf that he's not going to use the hastert rule? he let the republicans vote on their version first. then they voted on the senate version so that everyone could say, technically, they voted for violence against women .

>> and they also did it to avoid primaries on their right. that's why they voted no but they did, as karen said, have a vote that said yes.

>> how disappointing to say that in order to avoid a primary on your right you have to have a fake vote because you can't just come out and say that i believe in this country no woman should be abused, assaulted, raped. i believe we should protect every woman in this country. that's what you have to go through now in the republican party to not get primaried?

>> let's make it clear. this was a handful of republicans . and, like i said, it is fundamentally wrong. it's the problem with the republican primaries -- i'm sorry, the republican candidates right now and elected officials. they are afraid of their right. they should be doing what's right.

>> why don't these republicans want to stick to their convictions?

>> it may be only a handful of republicans who are now kind of pretending they voted for vawa when they really voted against it. but it's the majority of their -- of house republicans who actually voted against the violence against women act . and in certain ways, that's the bigger problem and that's what's more indicative of the problem with the republican party is that you have a party that's stuck between what the general public wants. violence -- protecting women from domestic violence is not a controversial proposition in this country. whatever the far right would like to think.

>> and yet the majority of republicans passed it in the senate.

>> yeah, so -- it passed by 68 votes in the senate. and yet the majority of house republicans thought that this was -- i don't know, too liberal. they -- they are enthralled to a base that opposes even very kind of common sense protections for women , for gays and lesbians , for imgrants. that was a big sticking point.

>> that was. the republican bill definitely did that. karen , why would they not do that for native americans ?

>> well, if you believe heritage and freedom works , it's because, really, ed, the senate version of the bill took away rights from men and heaven knows we cannot in any way shape or form infringe on the freedom of men in this country. i mean, literally, one of the posts freedom works wrote was now if you just irritate a woman she can call the police on you. that just shows how disconnected they are from the reality, right? they did not want to protect native american women . why? because what we were talking about is nonnative men who go on the reservations and abuse women because they know they can get away with it. we're talking about women who are here illegally for a variety of reasons, who are abused, who are afraid to come forward because they believe, you know, they'll get deported if they admit that they are being abused or raped or, you know, worse. and again, these are the most vulnerable people in our society. but i am glad it passed. that's the most important thing.

>> i don't understand why any of them would not vote for what was on the table from the democratic side. i mean, it's --

>> agreed.

>> it's somewhat of a select society to exclude people, isn't it, susan ?

>> i'm with the 87 members of the republican caucus that voted for it. it should have been passed. it was a good piece of legislation. it's an important piece of legislation, and it was a renewed piece that added a segment of the pop ulg thulation that is vulnerable.

>> we got job numbers out today. are these numbers going to turn around because of the budget cuts that kicked in a week from tonight, actually? from a week ago tonight? can they continue to keep these job numbers going. michelle, your thoughts on this.

>> i mean, from -- people who know a lot more about this than me say that these cuts are going to not turn the recovery around. but certainly slow it down. obviously, the republican party , which is desperate for any piece of bad news about the economy and there still are plenty of bad pieces of news about the economy are going to seize on that and blame obama for any slowdown that comes about as a result of their own intransigen intransigence.

>> it is obama 's economy right now. three years of this.

>> as you said in your first segment, let's give the guy some credit. we're having job creation , and the danger here is that the sequester, as most economists believe, will slow down that job growth at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite, which is obviously more growth. and just kind of to tie this back to how well you support women or not. a lot of the budget cuts, particularly in paul ryan 's first budget. we'll see a new budget from him. who took the brunt? and a lot of these programs we've been talking about, it's women and children who tend to take the hit. so if you really support women , it's not just about voting for some version of violence against women but looking at the economic policies that you support and how those policies actually impact working women in this country and women across the board in this country.

>> susan , i remember back in 2009 when the republicans couldn't wait to say that this was obama 's economy. can we say that now?

>> absolutely. he is accountable. he's held responsible. these were great numbers that came out today. but that's not to say that things won't, you know, that things will be steady. as michelle mentioned, there could be sequester problems with the sequester. but i think what is riding the stock market , why it had such a good week, and i think what will keep the economy going is that there's hope for a grand bargain. if we could see that, that could keep us in the right direction.

>> i hope there's no grand bargain because it will be the big three that will be on the table and that's not what the election was about. but i do agree with you that it is something to watch. michelle goldberg , karen finney, good to have you.

>>> john boehner is more interested in partying than politics in washington.

>>> and james o'keefe gets stung by his acorn sting. i'll talk exclusively to the man who made him pay up.