MSNBC host grills Blackburn: ‘Do you hate Obamacare more than you love your country?

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) accused MSNBC host Thomas Roberts of making “inappropriate” comments on Tuesday after he asked if she hated President Barack Obama’s health care reform law “more than you love your country.”

Following the announcement of a House Republican plan that threw a wrench in a bipartisan Senate deal to reopen the government, Roberts pointed out to Blackburn that the House wascontinuing to demand that part of the Affordable Care Act be repealed or delayed even after the president said the law was nonnegotiable.

“Do you hate Obamacare more than you love your country?” Roberts wondered.

“I think that comments like that, that you are making, are just incredibly inappropriate,” Blackburn replied.

“You don’t think it’s incredibly inappropriate to shut down our government and take all the hostages of Americans that you’ve taken?” Roberts pressed. “No, no, no. It’s not inappropriate because you’ve taken the government hostage through a shutdown. And all the American people, you’re now walking them to a cliff, the economy, and you’re going to push them over, one by one, based on the fact that you don’t like the ACA. That’s all it is.”

“Listen to yourself! We didn’t want a government shutdown,” Blackburn insisted. “Just listen to the way you’re sounding. My goodness! We didn’t want a government shutdown. We don’t want a government default.”

Roberts reminded the Tennessee Republican that she had told the Economic Club of Nashville that conservative lawmakers should do “everything we can do” to derail the health care reform law, and then she praised the efforts of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

“You have been planning a shutdown since August!” Roberts charged.

“Not at all!” Blackburn shot back. “What you are doing is so inappropriate. We didn’t want a shutdown. What we want to do is solve problems.”

Watch this video from MSNBC, broadcast Oct. 15, 2013.

Watch MSNBC Host WRECK RNC Chairman Over Pathetic Excuses About GOP Gov’t Shutdown!

From Americans Against The Tea Party

During an appearance on MSNBC, host Thomas Roberts blasted Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, for he and his party’s role in the government shutdown.

Roberts asked Priebus,

“Why do we need to attach the solutions or changes that go along with the law, that has been vetted by the Supreme Court, by a mandate by the people re-electing the President and both houses of Congress, why should that be attached to shutting down the government, and as the President is saying, basically writing a ransom note and asking for some type of goody bag in response for Congress doing its job to govern?”

Priebus’ pathetic response?

“Those are some pretty good talking points.”

“They’re not talking points,” Roberts shot back.

A noticeably frustrated Priebus responded, “It sounds like I’m debating the chairman of the DNC here, Thomas.  Okay, that’s fine.  I’m happy to debate you.”

Roberts took the opportunity to really hammer his point home, saying,

“No, no, no.  These are not talking points. This is specifically about what’s going on right now in Washington, D.C. and why they have to associate the health care law with running our government.  Why not just do a clean CR and get the government back up and running and then take to task, which some Republicans want to do, and then take to task ACA?”

A flustered Priebus offered a slew of excuses, none of which are worth mentioning.

Check and mate.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republican who voted to shut down government asks park ranger why part of government shut down

By Travis Gettys/Raw Story

A Republican lawmaker who voted for a budget measure that set up the government shutdown confronted a park ranger to ask why a particular portion of the government was shut down.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) asked the U.S. Park Service Ranger why she was keeping out most tourists from the World War II Memorial, although veterans have been permitted to go inside.

“How do you look at them and deny them access?” Neugebauer said, with an American flag tucked into his lapel pocket.

The ranger told Neugebauer, who voted Sunday with most House Republicans to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act while funding the federal government, that it was difficult to keep out tourists.

The congressman told the ranger it should be difficult, and he suggested Park Service employees should be ashamed of themselves.

“I’m not ashamed,” the ranger said, and a crowd of onlookers joined the confrontation.

“This woman is doing her job, just like me,” a bicyclist said. “I’m a 30-year federal veteran, (and) I’m out of work.”

Neugebauer blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for the shutdown, but the bicyclist said it was the government’s fault for not passing a budget.

Access to the memorial and other monuments in Washington, D.C., has become a political flashpoint after the government shut down Tuesday.

Two other House Republicans who voted for the budget measure rejected by the Senate, as promised, opened a barricade to the World War II Memorial to a group of veterans who’d arrived Tuesday morning as part of an Honor Flight visit.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) complained that House Republicans were trying to fund parts of the government they liked, such as the memorial, through smaller bills instead of voting on a comprehensive package that didn’t include a provision on Obamacare.

“They took hostages by shutting down the government,” Pelosi said. “Now they’re releasing one hostage at a time.”

The conservative Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request related to the order to close the memorial, and the Republican National Committee chairman offered to cover costs to keep the memorial open.

A White House spokesman said Tuesday that the Interior Department would permit World War II veterans inside the memorial grounds, and an Honor Flight spokesman said the park service had “bent over backward” to accommodate them.

Nevada Governor Vetoes Background Check Bill On Eve Of Newtown Six Month Anniversary

By Josh Israel/Think Progress

Defying 87 percent of the state’s voters, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) vetoed a universal background check bill for gun purchases on Thursday — one day before the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

The bill, passed by Nevada’s Democratically controlled state legislature, would have required a background check prior to all gun sales and would have increased reporting of mental illness data. The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm called the proposal “misguided gun control legislation being forced on law-abiding citizens of Nevada.”

But far from being forced upon the people, the state legislature was acting on their clear will. AnApril poll found 87 percent of Nevada voters think a background check should be required on all gun sales — including 75 percent of Nevadans who said that “strongly favor” such a law. Just nine percent of Nevadans strongly opposed the idea. A February poll had shown 86 percent support in Nevada for universal background checks. After voting against the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise in the U.S. Senate, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) was one of several opponents to see their approval ratings drop.

But Sandoval said his decision was in part due to the loud voices of that small minority that does not believe criminal background checks should be required prior to gun purchases. He told a local TV station that he’d received 28,000 calls from opponents, and only about 7,000 from supporters. While indicating support for the mental health data reporting provisions, he wrote in his veto message that requiring an instant background check would have been “an erosion of Nevadans’ Second Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution” that might “subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.”

Sandoval’s veto came on the of the six-month anniversary of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. At the time, he released a statement lamenting the shootings and ordering that the state’s flags be flown at half-staff in memory of the victims.

How Marco Rubio’s Abrupt Change Of Heart Could Endanger Immigration Reform

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told a conservative radio host on Tuesday that he would vote against a bipartisan immigration reform bill he helped draft unless lawmakers approve an amendment that would limit the Department of Homeland Security’s discretion over border security and potentially lengthen undocumented immigrants’ path to citizenship. The admission comes just months after Rubio described the existing security provisions as “the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” and the Senate Judiciary Committee added additional national security amendments to the legislation.

“Well, I think if those amendments don’t pass, then I think we’ve got a bill that isn’t going to become law, and I think we’re wasting our time,” Rubio told talker Hugh Hewitt, saying that he wouldn’t vote for the measure.

Rubio’s comments are a stark contrast from how he described the reform bill — crafted by a group of bipartisan senators — during his appearances on six Sunday talk shows in April and in countless interviews with conservative talk show hosts.

“[This bill] puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world,” Rubio told Meet The Press on April 14. “This bill once introduced, as we’ve agreed to, I think, will show that a broad base of enforcement measures, unlike anything this country’s ever seen.”

Three months later, Rubio appears to support an amendment crafted by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that would replace those measures with stricter requirements that could delay legal status for undocumented immigrants. Under Cornyn’s amendment, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Comptroller General must, among other requirements, certify that the government can monitor and control “every segment of the Southern border” before any immigrants in provisional status can file for lawful permanent residence. The current senate bill language says that immigrants can apply for lawful status after the secretary submits border security and a fencing strategies to Congress and insures that both are “substantially deployed and substantially operational.”

It also establishes and funds a “Southern Border Security Commission” to secure the border if DHS cannot reach the security goals in five years. Both approaches require the implementation of E-Verify, an employment verification system, and an entry-exit system.

In April, Rubio specifically defended the original bill from conservatives who argued that DHS has too much authority over border security. “If, in fact, [DHS] fails to reach out metric, then the homeland security will lose control of this issue and it will actually be turned over to a border commission made up of local officials from those states most impacted,” Rubio told Fox News Sunday. “They will have money set aside so they can solve it for those people themselves. So, we’re confident it’s achievable.”

Since those remarks, the Senate Judiciary Committee strengthened the security provisions of the bill. The Senators accepted an amendment from Sen. Chuck Grassey (R-IA) to apply border security strategies to all border sectors, required the government to acuqire and deploy watercraft to provide support for border related maritaime anti-crime activities, expanded background checks for refugees and asylees, and instituted a background check when immigrants in provisional status renew their status.

Adam Kokesh Calls Off Armed March On D.C. In Favor Of 50 State March For "Orderly Dissolution Of The Federal Government"

TIMOTHY JOHNSON/Media Matters For America:

Adam Kokesh is cancelling his planned July 4 armed march on Washington, D.C., and instead calling for a march on all 50 state capitols with the goal of overthrowing the federal government.

Kokesh, a former host for Russian state-sponsored RT television who now hosts an internet radio show, told conspiracy theorist radio host Pete Santilli that it was time to "escalate our tactics" before cancelling the Washington march and urging supporters to march on their state capitol instead.

On May 28, Santilli, a promoter of conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks who recently drew scrutiny from the Secret Service over vicious comments made about Hillary Clinton, aired an interview where Kokesh read from a press release and provided other details about the expansion of his plans.

Previously, Kokesh launched a Facebook page to organize his armed march on Washington, an event he hoped would draw at least 1,000 attendees. The page currently lists more than 5,000 attendees. 

In an interview with Buzzfeed, Kokesh detailed how he and others planned to march across the Memorial Bridge -- which separates Washington from Virginia -- while openly carrying firearms in violation of District of Columbia law. Kokesh told Buzzfeed that the event would be non-violent and said, "We're not going to resist government by force in any way." The Facebook description of the event stated, "This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent." District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier stated that those who bring weapons illegally into Washington would face arrest. 

In the press release, Kokesh called for "A new American revolution" where "the American Revolutionary Army will march on each state capital to demand that the governors of these 50 states immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property." Kokesh also gave the federal government a one-year deadline to comply with his demands before possibly taking violent action, writing, "Should one whole year from this July 4th pass while the crimes of this government are allowed to continue, we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible."

Describing the change in plans, Kokesh told listeners who planned to openly carry firearms into the nation's capital in defiance of local firearms laws to not come to Washington, D.C., but to instead organize armed marches or other events at state capitols nationwide. He also explained to Santilli that such an "orderly peaceful dissolution" would be a way to avoid a "chaotic collapse" of government and that it is the "last chance to do it the easy way." After Santilli suggested that "we can't wait for a couple of more elections in order to purge the system," Kokesh chastised him for giving credence to the notion that "elections can have a positive impact," adding, "that's clearly not the case anymore."

KOKESH: Please don't come to Washington, D.C., this now an appeal to the state level and I think it's much more appropriate given the gravity of the situation. We shouldn't be begging the federal government to change, we shouldn't be hoping that they respect our rights because it's clear that they don't.

And I can't even, as the organizer of this event, be able to say that I'm going to be there. We can't have this depend on any one person or even any central event.

SANTILLI: There you go.

KOKESH: So now it's a march on all 50 state capitols.  

[...] 

KOKESH: A lot of people have raised criticism about well, you can't just end the federal government. Well you can't keep it going either. Look at it, it's going to collapse under its own weight. We are an empire in decline and if we don't do something about this now, like an orderly peaceful dissolution, it's going to be a chaotic collapse.

I've always said this as libertarians from our analysis of government when we say, hey you know what, we need to reduce the coercion in society, reduce the tyranny and the force and the fraud that is government. I've always thought when we're saying is, look guys we can do this the easy way or the hard way. And this is sort of like, hey guys, last chance to do it the easy way.

[...]

SANTILLI: Tell me if you agree or disagree with this, that we can't wait for a couple of more elections in order to purge the system. That we have a system of government right now that is not --

KOKESH: Were you suggesting -- hold on, hold on, I have to stop and laugh at you for a second if I may --

SANTILLI: Yes, please.

KOKESH: -- were you actually just suggesting that elections can have a positive impact? Or were you suggesting that elections can somehow clean house or clear out? Because I think if anything that's clearly not the case anymore.

WSJ Columnist Taranto Uses Gabby Giffords' Injuries To Silence Her On Gun Violence

TIMOTHY JOHNSON/Media Matters for America:

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto questioned the authenticity of a New York Times op-ed authored by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by claiming that the op-ed appeared online too quickly to have been written by someone "who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions."

Giffords' April 18 op-ed was written in response to the failure of expanded background checks legislation. On January 8, 2011, Giffords was shot in the head during a constituent meeting in an attack that killed six and left 13 wounded.

Taranto's comments occurred on the April 19 edition of the National Rifle Association's news show, Cam & Company, where he said it was "odd" that the Times ­op-ed, which Taranto described as "Giffords' personal reaction as somebody who's been wounded by gun violence," was published approximately five hours after the Senate voted on background checks. Taranto cast doubt on the idea that Giffords had authored the piece, commenting, "So we are supposed to believe that somehow in less than five hours a woman who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions was able to produce 900 publishable words and put in an appearance in the White House in the course of it."

From Cam & Company:

TARANTO: One fascinating thing about this is this piece was published no later than 9:03 PM on Wednesday evening, because that's when it first appears on the New York Times' Twitter feed. The last Senate vote on amendments to the gun bill was a bit after 6 [PM]. Giffords appeared at the White House at 5:35 [PM] when we saw that enraged rant by the president. The Manchin-Toomey [background check] provision was the first vote. That was at 4:04 PM. So if you read this piece it's presented as a cry from the heart, as Giffords' personal reaction as somebody who's been wounded by gun violence to the betrayal of these Senators. So we are supposed to believe that somehow in less than five hours a woman who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions was able to produce 900 publishable words and put in an appearance in the White House in the course of it. So I think that's a little bit odd. 

Taranto offers no evidence for his offensive insinuation that Giffords would not have been capable of authoring the piece herself. He also ignores the possibility that Giffords could have authored the op-ed ahead of time in expectation of the widely-predicted outcome - hardly an unusual practice.

Taranto is one of a group of conservatives who offered personal attacks on Giffords for her Times op-ed. In the April 18 column that Taranto appeared on NRA News to discuss, he claimed that Giffords "turned out to be a practitioner of incivility and unreason" in the gun policy debate.  

Other attacks on Giffords by conservatives in media include:

• Writing for the National Review Online, Kevin D. Williamson criticized Giffords' op-ed by stating, "it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions." Williamson added that Giffords' op-ed was "childish" and "an embarrassment."
• Right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds, who writes under the name Instapundit, had a similar reaction to Giffords' frustration with the Senate, advising her to "Try more respect and reason, less emotional bullying next time."
• In support of Reynold's comments, right-wing blogger Dan Riehl said that Giffords' tactics were "shameful" and "all but anti-American," and added, "I'm sorry you were a victim Ms. Giffords. But I refuse to be yours by surrendering my rights in the face of your over-emotional and fundamentally illogical pleading which is not only a form of bullying but the worst sort of emotional blackmail, as well."

Men With Loaded Rifles Intimidate Moms Gathered At Gun Safety Rally

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

Several men with assault rifles and hand guns crashed a Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns National Day to Demand Action event in Indianapolis, Indiana on Thursday and stood silently as the state chapter of Moms Demand Action held a rally in favor of limiting the availability of military style weapons and universal background checks.

At least two or three men showed up at the rally site before the event began and engaged in a discussion about gun regulations with the group, two participants in the action told ThinkProgress. The armed men — who were later joined by another man carrying a hand gun and a woman who runs Indiana Moms Against Gun Control — insisted that they had a right to carry the loaded weapons:

 

Watch local news coverage of the event:

A member of Moms Demand Action said that she felt unsettled by their presence and said that the organizers would have to think twice before holding another event, particularly one where children could be present.

Members of Moms Demand Action also attended an event at the White House today, during which President Obama called on Congress to pass sensible gun regulations and urged the nation to remember the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Republican Congressman Attacks Sasha And Malia Obama

By Scott Keyes/Think Progress

This week, Breitbart News broke a long-standing security protocol and published a story detailing the precise location where President Obama’s daughters are vacationing this week. On Wednesday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) used the report to attack the First Daughters for taking a vacation.

King’s comments came during an appearance on Mickelson in the Morning, an Iowa-based radio show. A caller, Carla, brought up sequestration and proceeded to criticize the Michelle Obama and her daughters for taking a vacation in the Bahamas. King agreed — “Carla, you’re on point and on the mark all the way through” — before criticizing them for also taking a vacation last year in Mexico. “That was at our expense, too,” King bemoaned.

CALLER: When I see the First Lady and the beautiful girls going off to the Bahamas waving goodbye to us, it’s really hard to stomach. When we’re tightening our belts, either all of us should do it or none of us should do it. This, I am pretty tolerant, I always have been, I usually shut my mouth. This is not acceptable.

KING: Carla, you’re on point and on the mark all the way through. […] You’re right on the president. He needs to show some austerity himself. Instead he wanted to tell America how bad it was going to be. […] We’ve got the president doing these things. He sent the daughters to spring break in Mexico a year ago. That was at our expense, too. And now to the Bahamas at one of the most expensive places there. That is the wrong image to be coming out of the White House.

Listen to it:

This notion that the Obamas are living a life of excess is beginning to take hold among conservative members of Congress. At the CPAC conference earlier this month, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) smeared Obama for enjoying “the perks and the excess of the $1.4 billion presidency,” a charge that “fail[s] on the facts in simple fairness,” according to CNN.

King is strongly considering running for Iowa’s open Senate seat in 2014. His potential candidacy is already causing consternation among establishment Republicans who worry that he will be a Todd Akin-redux, appealing only to far-right conservatives and turning off everyone else.

Congressman Considers Gabby Giffords A ‘Prop’ For Gun Regulations

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV) on Tuesday agreed that he considers former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), who was a victim of an assassination attempt two years ago, a “prop” in the debate over gun regulations.

Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports, uncovered the audio of Heck, speaking with conservative radio talk show host Alan Stock, agreed that Giffords was nothing more than a “prop” at the State of the Union:

STOCK: At the end of the president’s State of the Union when he said have a vote for Gabby Giffords, have a vote for this and that. I found that to be nauseating and you know what else is nauseating too is putting Gabby Giffords up there, who can’t even clap her hands, as a figure of somebody being — having shot her. I think it’s a shameful act putting her up there as a prop. I’m sorry. I really do.

HECK: Yeah, no I agree. I think again in the cloud of emotion surrounding Connecticut those who are anti-gun want to use that to limit their Second Amendment rights.

Listen to it:

Giffords has made a remarkable recovery since she was shot through the head at a town hall in a parking lot in Tucson, AZ, two years ago. In fact, the experience has prompted Giffords, along with her husband Mark Kelly, to found an organization called Americans For Responsible Solutions, devoted to combating gun violence.

UPDATE

Heck’s office release this statement on the incident:

My statement was in reference to the idea of gun control grab coming out of Washington DC. Of course there is no way that I think that Gabby Giffords is a prop… Should I have come to her defense? You know, in a fast-moving interview, in retrospect, I should have said something but I didn’t. I was just looking to get past that and talk about gun control in general.

Fox News hosts scoff at 102-year-old woman’s 3-hour wait to vote: ‘What’s the big deal?

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Three Fox News hosts on Wednesday dismissed the long three-hour wait a 102-year-old woman in Florida endured by saying it was no “big deal” and “she was happy.”

During his Tuesday State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on Congress to protect voting rights and noted that 102-year-old Desiline Victor, who attended the speech, had been “told the wait to vote might be six hours” when she arrived at the polling place in November — though the wait only ended up being three hours.

“And as [three hours of] time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. Hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her,” the president explained. “Because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read ‘I Voted.’”

But the following day, Fox News hosts Brian Kilmeade, Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer said that Victor had no right to complain because she was “happy” after finally completing her civic duty.

Speaking on Kilmeade’s Fox News radio show, MacCallum suggested that long voting lines were not important enough to include in a State of the Union speech because the problem could be handled at the “municipal level… Get the town council on that one.”

“How long was she on line?” Hemmer wondered, casting doubt on the story.

“What’s the big deal? She was happy,” MacCallum quipped. “She waited on line, she was happy that she voted.”

“They held her up as a victim!” Hemmer agreed. “What was she the victim of? Rashes on the bottom of her feet?”

Listen to this audio from Fox News radio’s Kilmeade & Friends, broadcast Feb. 13, 2013.

Trump: Jindal is ‘stupid’ for calling Republicans ‘stupid’

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Billionaire mogul Donald Trump says that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is the “stupid” one because he should not have publicly called Republicans “the stupid party.”

In his keynote address to Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in North Carolina last month, Jindal had advised Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and to “talk like adults.”

“I think he was stupid for using that term because that term is so obnoxious and so good for the other side that he should not have used that term,” Trump told Fox News on Monday. “Because that term is going to be living now with the Republican Party for a long time and they’re going to have his face on television saying it for the next four years.”

“I thought that term used by the governor was a disgrace, and he shouldn’t have used it,” he added. “I thought it was very demeaning to the Republican Party… You don’t use the word stupid because the word stupid is now going to be a part of the vocabulary of the Democrats.”

“I thought it was a horrible thing for him to say. Frankly, I thought it was stupid thing for him to say.”

But in a 2011 video posted to YouTube, it was Trump who blasted the “stupidity” of the Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) because it slashed Medicare.

“When they tamper with Medicare, they have a death wish,” he said. “The Democrats are laughing at the stupidity of the Republicans and this Ryan plan.”

The reality star also announced on Monday that he was suing HBO comedian Bill Maher for $5 million dollars over a “bet” on Jay Leno’s show that Trump couldn’t prove that his mother didn’t have sex with an orangutan.”

“I’ll sue him at about 12 o’clock today,” Trump promised. “For $5 million, all going to charity. He said, if you do this, he made me an offer, I accepted the offer immediately and he didn’t come through with the $5 million.”

Fox News host Steve Doocy pointed out that Maher would argue the bet was a joke.

“Well, they may,” Trump agreed. “But let’s see what happens. I don’t think he was joking. He said it with venom. That was venom, that wasn’t a joke. In fact, he was nervous when he said it. It was a pathetic delivery.”

Watch this video from Fox News’ Fox & Friends, broadcast Feb. 4, 2013.

Scarborough repeatedly shouts ‘Benghazi!’ to block voter suppression talk

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Monday attempted to shut down any talk of voter suppression by shouting “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” over and over again to change the subject to the September attacks on Americans in Libya, a topic that Republicans believe hurts President Barack Obama.

During a discussion about the tight presidential race in Florida, co-host Mika Brzezinski attempted to point out that Republicans had restricted early voting, creating long lines and chaos for voters in some counties.

“You just feel like you have to finish with a story, Republicans bad, [Florida Gov.] Rick Scott bad, voting suppression,” Scarborough complained, throwing up his arms. “I have three words: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. I’m wandering around my ranch house muttering the words, ‘Benghazi.’ I mean, seriously, are we going here? Are we really going here?”

“But you know what?” Brzezinski attempted to continue. “We’ve had a…”

“Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” Scarborough interrupted.

“It’s absolutely a story,” NBC’s David Gregory said of the long voter lines.

“Benghazi’s a story,” Scarborough quipped.

“It’s something we have to watch very carefully,” Gregory added. “And by the way, I think the Benghazi issue, I think there are real questions about Benghazi. There are serious questions… well, he brought it up!”

“Why do you want to cover up Benghazi?” Scarborough shouted, pointing at MSNBC.com executive editor Richard Wolffe. “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!”

“Is the voter story I just read a story?” Brzezinski asked Republican strategist Steve Schmidt.

“Benghazi, Benghazi,” Scarborough muttered as Schmidt tried to answer.

“I mean, kind of,” the Republican strategist admitted. “Is it possible a local elections officials in Florida screwed up the early voting? Yes. Is it part of some big, giant Republican conspiracy out there? Absolutely not.”

“So what happened in Benghazi?” Scarborough said.

“I think we can all agree, Republicans and Democrats — whatever your preference — they all should be able to vote,” Wolffe explained. “Those lines are offensive wherever they are, whoever’s responsible. Lines should not happen for several hours just to allow people to do that.”

“I agree,” Scarborough replied. “Just like I agree that we really need to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.”

Watch this video from MSNBC’s Morning Joe, broadcast Nov. 5, 2012.

)

GOP Senate Candidate Akin: ‘Free Enterprise’ Means Being Allowed To Deny Equal Pay To Women

By Aviva Shen/Think Progress

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) has struggled with a well-established woman problem in his Senate campaign, ever since he claimed women could not get pregnant from “legitimate rape.” After he said his opponent, incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), was not “ladylike,” her campaignreleased a video of Akin suggesting that businesses should be allowed to pay women less than men.

When a man asked him why he voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Akin said he didn’t support the idea that “government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?

AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom. If someone what’s to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.

Watch it:

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill President Obama signed into law and eases the burden on women to prove paycheck discrimination. Akin, along with all but three House Republicans, voted against the bill. Republicans blocked another pay equity bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, earlier this summer; it would create larger penalties for employers who pay women less than men and strengthen protections for women who sue for equal pay.

Tens Of Thousands Of Feminists Call On CNN To Fire Sexist Contributor

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress:

This afternoon, in just over one hour, 23,000 people signed a petition asking CNN to fire contributor Erick Erickson.

His offense? He referred to the Democrats’ packed list of female speakers at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina as “the Vagina Monologues”:

Erick Erickson

• ✔

@EWErickson

First night of the Vagina Monologues in Charlotte going as expected.

4 Sep 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

After a flurry of furious tweets, Erickson — who once said he “kind of like[d] the idea” that women are barred from a golf club so that he wasn’t “hanging out at some women’s event” — half-heartedly expressed regret for his comment, saying “My apologies to those offended by my tweet. Wasn’t my intention.”

But UltraViolet, a women’s advocacy group, launched the petition calling on CNN to “Take him off the air right away” for his sexist line. “Seriously?” the petition reads, “He hears powerful, eloquent women talking about crucial issues and that’s his reaction?”

Among the “Vagina Monologues” that Erickson was referring to were speeches by Sec. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius; Congressional candidate and double-amputee Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth; and the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama.

UPDATE

The petition is quickly gaining steam. UltraViolet representative Molly Haigh reports that, as of 4:30 pm on Wednesday, it has 32,000 signatures.