colleagues across the aisle for political gain. my friends, this supposed war on women or the use of similarly outlandish rhetoric bipartisan operatives has two purposes, and both are political in the purpose and effect. outlandish rhetoric, and we will get to that. senator mccain spoke thursday hours before the senate voted 68-31 to reauthorize the violence against women s act and now it is the house s turn, and they are proposing their own version of the bill. joining me is abby philip of politico, and former louisiana governor buddy roemer and mona who is a publisher of a topic in a magazine that we will talk about at the top of the hour, and jessy from politico. so can you tell us what are the
want to pay for. it s about threatening to shut . which you did. it s about campaigning on jobs, jobs, jobs and to roll back women s reproductive rates in a general ration. last night the united states senate passed the violence against women s act. the violence against women act. voting against that bill were 31 senate republicans. 31 senate republican men voted against the violence against women act. among them proudly standing against the violence against women act was potential republican vice presidential nominee marco rubio. i don t know if there s a divide here in terms the way the democrats and republicans think about this. when republicans turn away from policy, they turn toward messaging. when democrats get mired in policy, they go from policy into messaging. they try to turn whatever their
the violence against women s act is now headed for the house. the 18-year-old law pours resources in helping victims of domestic violence. the senate voted to reauthorize it yesterday by a vote of 68-# 1. according to the hill, all of the no votes came from republican men. the legislation faces a rockier road when it goes before the house. republicans in the house have offered up rival legislation. joining me for this week s sound off is georgetown university law student sandra fluke. we know her name is synonomous with the phrase war on women since february. the senate vote on the violence against women s act that we talked about, does have the majority of the no votes coming from republican men. what is your reaction to the continuing use of women s rights women s issues as the political hot potato or football that keeps going back and forth? well i think it s really unfortunate. the last time the violence against women act was reauthorized a few years ago it had passed the sen
santorum s stuff to yours to sound impressive. between me and lebron james last night, we scored 3 36 points. that s not your total. well didn t gingrich have the same people that called for the dropout? if they split the vote, this is romney s game. up next, there s a big fight off on capitol hill coming. it s on renewing the violence against women act. democrats are painting republicans resist tense to the bill of another example of hostility towards women. that s ahead. you re watching hardball, only on msnbc. wake up! that s good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could ve had a v8. last season was the gulf s best tourism season in years.
domestic violence. but this bill started out in a bipartisan way and it doesn t make sense for republicans to be opposing the violence against women act and they are not. the bill has some controversial provisions in it. we should have a free and fair and open debate on the senate floor and get the law extended. i want you to respond to something on chuck schumer s motives. he believes he s found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of the place. the violence against women act. republicans have objections, but instead of making changes, schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor and let the gop block it. then allow democrats to arepublicans of waging a war against women. your reaction? well, unfortunately, while i can t speak for senator schumer s motives, that certainly seems to be what s happening.