shell is the only company given the go ahead by the u.s. government. shell sent two rigs to go try to drill in to arguhe arctic, and said today, forget it, we're out. we can't do it. shellñi announced today that th

are not returning at all for the rest of 2013. and whether they return beyond 2013 will depend on a number of factors, including the readiness of our rigs, and the confidence that the lessons from 2012 will be fully incorporated. it also depends on whether or not the government is going to decide to allow them back at all. remember, they were the only ones who have ever been allowed. they were first, and given shell's mess up there, they sent two rigs, the first ones fail, the second ones fail, maybe a criminal one. one crashed in the island and had to be towed away. given their record, the interior department is doing an emergency review on whether the drilling can be done at all. the one company they thought could do it was shell, and they thought actually, we think maybe we can do it, although we're going to stop trying. wow, what happened today was

unexpected. and what happened next in the industry is anybody's guest. thank you for joining us tonight, now it is time "the last word," have a great night. the civil rights pioneer makes history again. >> the civil rights launched a movement. >> becoming the first african-american woman to have a statue in the capitol. >> it is because of these men and women that i stand here today. >> the supreme court is hearing arguments. >> the supreme court hears oral arguments today. >> on the voting rights act of 1965. >> legal experts say it is now in serious trouble. >> the right to vote must be preserved. >> there are forces that want to take us back. >> the right to vote must be protected. >> one of the law's provisions, section five, is at risk of being struck down. >> to prevent voter discrimination. >> we still need section five, and that is why we're here

today. >> it has been reauthorized by congress four times. >> four times, most recently in 2006. >> and that was just in 2006. >> with an overwhelming majority of bipartisan votes. >> what has happened since 2006? >> justice scalia made a statement that cuts through everything else. >> and i'm quoting him. >> some pretty incendiary language. >> in the past they have been more supportive. >> the gop seems to have lost some of its enthusiasm. >> there are still forces in this country that want to take us back, we must never give up, never give up, never give in. >> good evening, i'm chris hayes, in for lawrence o'donnell. the 13th amendment of the

constitution, ratified the year the civil war ended in 1965, prohibiting slavery. they granted citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the united states. and in 1950, they decreed that anybody shall not be denied to right to vote because of race, color or servitude. but the mechanics have left the states and localities, they gave the states explicit authority to enforce it. president johnson signed the voting rights to stop states and localities from using a darkly ingenius set of rights to stop them from voting. the mandate approved by the federal court was re-authorized in 2006, the senate voted 98-0,

the justice department filed nearly a thousand objections to voting laws. and in the last election cycle alone, they passed early voting cutbacks in florida, and redistricting maps in texas, all under section five. federal courts agreed in most cases. but today, shelby county alabama legal experts, paid for, by a conservative activist, said they were wrong to react, because basically, racism is now a thing of the past in the south. >> i was 24 years old when we came under section five. i'm 73 last weekend. and we are still under the same formula, none of which has applied to us in many, many, many years. >> section five currently covers alabama, alaska, arizona, georgia, louisiana, mississippi, south carolina, texas and virginia. and some jurisdictions in several other states, including new york. during oral arguments, justice

sotomayer spoke on the litigation permitted to catch the new forms of discrimination practices being developed. as the court struck down one form, the states would find another. justice scalia said the courts should be skeptical because it would be damaging for politicians to vote against the perpetuation of racial entitlement for minority voters. here was reverend al sharpton on the steps today. >> last year the id lines, and long lines and ending early voting, and stopping those going to the polls, showed that jim crow's son, james crow jr. is still trying to do what his daddy did. and that is rob us from the right to vote. >> joining me now is the

co-director of the project which focuses on democracy and race. and i just want to get your thoughts on oral arguments today. i think we knew going into this, the last supreme court case this court looked at on the voting rights act, showed a tremendous amount of skepticism and hostility. i wonder, was today surprising to you? >> no, not surprising. i mean, you know, you have justice scalia, i think showed a little bit more of his attitudes towards section five, and towards race discrimination, and race discrimination issues also. his whole comment about this is a racial entitlement is just incredulous. you know, i haven't known in this country where we have had a time where there has actually been some entitlement because of race. in fact, when we look at section five, it is protection, not

entitlement. and then justice sotomayor, thank goodness she was there on the bench as an advocate. the justices talked about the fact that we have not cured the disease of discrimination. so you know, no surprises, i think. so you know, at the end of the day we know it comes down to that one justice, justice kennedy. >> and what did you think of justice kennedy today? he had kind of a famous line the last time where he basically said you are insulting the sovereign dignity of the state, the state of georgia, the congress is valuing the sovereign dig nnity of the xdst. he said something that sounded similarly skeptical, and since it will almost certainly come down to justice kennedy, what were your thoughts on what he

said about justice kennedy? >> my prediction -- oh, don't rewind. so my prediction is that he will side with us on this. >> hmm. >> that he will uphold it, because at the end of the day, justice kennedy sometimes has broken waves with the conservative flock. and he actually believes in fairness. now, i'm not saying that in every case he has been fair. clearly there have been some race cases in particular where we have been concerned. but i think that at the end of the day that fairness will rule. that there was enough information before congress in 2006 to say that we still need a voting rights act. and clearly, we know, chris, from all the coverage you have done that in fact in 2011 and 2012, we needed the voting rights act to hold back all the laws that made it harder to vote for voters of color. >> i want to bring in, as well,

reverend al sharpton who attended the oral arguments today. and reverend, i'm occcurious wh you thought about the oral arguments? >> well, i think there was outrage on both sides, i was outraged by justice scalia's comment, that the protection of voting rights, the discrimination in the areas, the districts, are referred to as a racial entitlement. but aside from that outburst, which i think shows at best, a deep insensitivity, for what the voting rights act was for and remains in effect for, i think that clearly, there is in my opinion enough of a record there to show why we clearly need to continue to have section five.

when you look at just the last election, and all of the voter suppression schemes that this disproportionatly affected the black voters in all states, it shows why we must have clearance and must have the ability for the justice department that the congress decided and and reauthorized as late as 2006, they must have the authority to continue to protect those in those districts who have had various schemes to disenfranchise minority voters. >> you mentioned the rash of legislation in the last voter cycle. laws, cutdowns on early voting almost always pushed through, in states by republican lawmakers and governors. one of the strange arguments being made by the plaintiffs in this case is that we have had such a rash of restrictive

measures taken in places that are not covered by section five, that the districts, like the state of georgia and those that are not covered, for instance, like the state of ohio means that the formula for figuring out what areas to target and which areas not to target is out moded or unconstitutionally haphazard. and reverend, what is your argument on areas fighting against it? >> well, first of all i think it is a bogus argument in this case. because what are you saying? if i am one that feels that the defense is not that i stole, so everybody is stealing, so you ought to let me go because you didn't get the other thieves. that is the most irrational argument i've heard. and what is what they're saying, we're not the only ones doing it. not that we're not doing it. we're not the only ones doing it. the fact of the matter is these

districts clearly under the voting rights act under section five. clearly were outmoded and clearly continues to be a problem. and when you look at it, it was outlined very well, i feel by the arguments today, we're outlining the impacts still going on in alabama, no state-wide districts that are elected, are the disproporti disproportionate impact, they should be monitored and under free clearance. if you want to make the argument it ought to be expanded to others, that is a different argument. but how does that in any sane argument say that you should therefore not leave us to our own whims? that we are not even arguing may not still be there, and would in fact continue to disenfranchise voters at least since 1864, as

voters that need to be regulated. >> one of the cases in alabama, there is a bailout procedure for vote are rights. if you have a clean record for a period of time, you can get out from under the fact that you actually have to go through this pre-clearance mechanism, right? shelby county could not, because as recently in 2008 they had a redistricting tragedy that led to getting rid of the lone representation from an african-american city council member. and judi, there was a moment where justice sotomayor said well, they may have changed, but you in fact haven't. >> and this is what is important in this case. under the voting rights act if you have not committed discrimination and are covered by section five, you can bail out. there have been about 200 jurisdictions that have bailed out because they have a clean record. shelby county, so too bad on

you, you actually couldn't bail out, you have a history, and it is a present-day history. so i think this is where the case is going to come down to is that congress had enough information before it. president george w. bush signed the authorization of the voting rights act to section five. so there was enough before them. shelby county, clean up your act, get over it. stop discriminating, and bail out like the others have done. >> wonderful to have you here, and judith brown, thank you for joining us. >> and coming up, more on the voting rights act for republicans. what is really driving the conservative shutout of governor chris christie? coming up. people have doubts about taking aspirin for pain.

but they haven't experienced extra strength bayer advanced aspirin. in fact, in a recent survey, 95% of people who tried it agreed that it relieved their headache fast. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer.

so how did we get here? how did we get to the point of what used to be a bipartisan

piece of legislation is hanging on by a thread? that is next. and what robin kelly says about the politics of post-sandy hook america? that is coming up.

today's supreme court arguments highlighted the paradox of the current racial problems of the republican party. the voting rights act has been a bipartisan piece of legislation. in 2006, congress voted on reauthorization. in the house of representatives it passed with 390 votes, 192 republican, 192 democratic, in the senate it passed with 98-0,

54 republican, 44, democratic, and the supreme court today, the one facing the horrible threat to its sovereign dignity, those two senators, both republicans, voted for re-authorization in 2006. here is president george w. bush signing the legislation with congressional leaders, the congressional black caucus and civil rights leaders. during his remarks, the president said this. >> my administration will strongly enforce the provisions of this law, and we'll defend it in court. >> so on one level, the national level, the voting rights act has been the rare issue not subject to tremendous partisan polarization. and yet on another level, the law designed to prevent the infringement on voting rights, the head of the pennsylvania party in the state legislature actually bragged about passing a law that disenfranchised the

voter opposition. >> voter id, which allows governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, done. >> with respect to voting rights itself, the ledger of states opposing the so-called pre clearance law has grown. in the 2009 case, only georgia and to a lesser extent alabama challenged the law head on. now five states, alaska, south carolina, and texas are asking the court to strike down the pre-clearance portion of a law. all the states are gop-led, and all among those subject to the process which they contend is burdensome and unfair. and the report ordered up, showing why it fared poorly with the voters didn't respond to several requests from the views on the voter rights challenge. today, eric cantor's office made this announcement, this week, house majority eric cantor will participate in the civil rights

pilgrimage, he will be joined by a bipartisan delegation through alabama. the original congressman who helped to lead the civil rights act, helped to pass it in 1975. it appears though they would like to thread the needle, as andrew cohen wrote, many will get to see the death of section five without having their fingerprints on the weapon. that killed it. joining me now, ari melber. i thought the silence from -- we were moving around, looking for statements being posted by republican members of congress. the rnc, outlets of official republicandom, which sometimes weighs in on big cases, nothing,

basically crickets. i am curious how you interpret it? >> easy, there was the unveiling of the statue of rosa parks, who led the movement, the most important civil rights victory of the movement. so i don't think they were going to unveil this statue and talk about how rosa parks was such a great inspiration and great woman, and then cross the street and say by the way, we think the voting right should be ruled unconstitutional. >> i think that is what is so remarkable about the case before the court. you have what is particularly by contemporary standards, a remarkable consensus on the piece of legislation. and the moment with scalia, which he refers to racial entitlement, the context in which he is making it. the context in which he shows that each subsequent reauthorization, that to his

mind shows that it is something illlegitimate, because there is a nefarious force of political correctness, that stops the members of congress from voting against the act. >> right, justice scalia said you have more and more republicans voting for it. they're afraid to vote against it. the rebuttal from the solicitor general says the task is really not to delve into it. the other argument, especially by chief justice roberts, you hear it at barbecues, well, we have a black president and black elected officials. what is the problem? the problem is the voting rights act is not about electing black people. it is about black people having the right to vote. that is where we started with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. >> and also we should say latinos, asians, minorities. >> absolutely, but when you go

back to the text, the amendment of the constitution, which is what the court is supposed to do. when we talk about servitude, this is black people who were slaves in the country who had no rights and we were trying to secure the rights. it is so disturbing when you see that argument, that idea because barack obama won, the right that every other person has is somehow not as important to protect. and number two, and i'll finish here, number two, black people vote for white candidates, too. their access to the ballot box has nothing to do with who gets elected, necessarily. >> there is another argument about scalia's comment about racial entitlements. that is about 100 years ago, the supreme court actually nullified the supreme court memoamendment they said reconstruction, that has been too much advancement. and two thirds of the 20th century of the jim crow laws, which the voting rights act was meant to overcome. >> right, it was later invalidated by the supreme court

of the united states as specially an over-reach of the congress's authority and violation of the constitution. i think what is fascinating here in terms of the politics, this law is popular. i thought this was interesting, the state of texas, the state of texas has joined the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, joining shelby county, saying get rid of this burden on us. you ask people, states should still be under federal supervision. 51% yes, states should be able to change their election laws without federal approval. the majority -- this is the lone star state, the independent republic of texas. if there is any place -- so there really doesn't seem to me any kind of broad grass roots political support for this provision. >> no, but this has been a long-term goal of the of the conservative movement to chip away at this law. even the chief justice, one primary job was to figure out

ways not to enforce the voting rights act. this has been a long-term effort to chip away at the situation, the chief justice may get his chance to do so. >> i am concerned about what the political ramifications look like, as people nervously anticipate what is going to happen. >> i think there is a back lash, that goes back to something you were discussing with reverend sharpton, which is the james crow jr. argument, the voter id laws that people learned a lot about. justice sotomayor said it best, that is why there was the approach, you didn't have the free clearance, the moving of poll locations, voter id, a sinister one. you know, when you talk to a lot of black voters, they say 2008

was about him, barack obama, and 2012 was about us, because they were coming after our rights and our votes. a lot of people thought it was a political back lash that drove turnout. it may have been good politically, but also shows the cost when the court and states come in and try to get in the way of your right to vote. >> and i wonder, too, the underlying premise, there is some sort of temporal aspect to this, we're in a state in which the law is no longer needed. i think supporters of the law buy into that. i wonder if -- i actually don't think i believe it. i just think the remedy is needed because the impulses are just going to be there as part of society in american life. >> they have always been there, from the founding, and especially through the '60s until we had an effective legislative measure to deal with it. so that impulse to find out these new -- create these new innovations to subvert the law

has always been there. i think the court is right, if the court strikes down the law and in response we can then make a demand for some kind of national voting law. coming up, when you don't want something to happen and you can stop it from happening, what should you do? stop it from happening. yes, you are correct. and if john boehner really hated the sequester, he could stop it on just one line with a piece of paper, the easy solution he wouldn't take coming up. but the. one that's always eluded me. thought i had it in the blizzard of '93. ha! never even came close. sometimes, i actually think it's mocking me. [ engine revs ] what?! quattro!!!!! ♪ otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before.

this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ suddit's part of what you donslove about her.essing. but your erectile dysfunction - you know, that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache.

to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

servit . jack lew was confirmed today as treasury secretary, which means many things. but tonight, a reminder is this. the current situation is in dire concern of looking like a hostess cup cake. in the special election, it could be a sign of a huge political shift when it comes to the gun lobby, coming up. [ laughing ] ahh, cloudy glasses. you didn't have to come over! easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. look! over time, a competing gel can leave cloudy hard water deposits, but cascade complete pacs help leave glasses sparkling. cascade. love it or your money back. but cascade complete pacs help leave glasses sparkling.

if youthen this willbrids arbe a nice surprise. meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max come. c-max go. c-max give a ride to everyone it knows. c max has more passenger volume than competitor prius v and we haven't even mentioned... c-max also gets better mpg. say hi to the super fuel efficient ford c-max hybrid. i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is! [ angry gibberish ] ah. 4g, huh? verizon 4g lte. 700 megahertz spectrum, end-to-end, pure lte build. the most consistent speeds indoors or out. and, obviously, astonishing throughput. obviously... you know how fast our home wifi is? yeah. this is basically just as fast. oh.

and verizon's got more fast lte coverage than all other networks combined. so it's better. yes. oh, why didn't you just say that? huh-- what is he doing? when the doctor told me that i could smoke for the first week... i'm like...yeah, ok... little did i know that one week later i wasn't smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery.

common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. it helps to have people around you... they say, you're much bigger than this. and you are. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. we found out two days ago the most popular governor in the country right now if polls are to be believed was not invited to speak at the annual cpac conference today. today we know why he was left out. they received an e-mail from al cardenas, which claimed he broke from traditional issues. he said it is like the all-star game for professional athletes, you get invited when you have an all-star year, hopefully he will have another all-star year, at which time he will be invited to attend. this is a conservative conference. presumably it means that cpac

invited mitt romney, paul ryan, and spokesperson, cardenas clearly using a sort of complicated metrics we don't have access to. his e-mail cited the governor's support for the $60 billion aid for the hurricane sandy victims. in this move chris christie made just yesterday. >> it is simple, we're putting people first, which is why after considerable discussion and research i have decided to participate in medicaid expansion under the affordable care act. >> for the record, none of the eight republican governors who have come out in support of the medicaid expansion are speaking at cpac next month. chris christie was asked a question about the cpac snub during a town hall in new jersey today, to which he reply ied.

>> listen, i wish them all the best, they get to decide who comes and not comes, it is not like i'm asking to be at other areas to speak, i can't sweat the small stuff. >> oh, chris christie. >> joining me now, krystal ball, david acce david axelrod had a good comment, isn't cpac just making him stronger? i feel like you are really feeling the chris christie approach these days. >> it is just so funny, because he is the one republican elected official who is really figuring out how to appeal to moderates. his approval rating is 73 or 4, depending on the polls, he is beating the democratic challenger, he is figuring out how to make this toxic brand in new jersey, which is a pretty deep blue state. you would figure they want to take a look and figure out the compromises they want to make, in order to win elections. the problem is, he has shown you

have to make compromises in order to win elections. and they don't like that message. >> i think that the conservative base -- puts a lot of -- emphasis on theater and symbolism, i don't say that as a condescending way, they all do that in terms of liberals and progressives. also, what is cross-pressured here i always feel like conservatives really love a winner and hate a loser. and that was the thing that allowed george w. bush to get away with things they didn't like, he was just so popular. i feel like things that are at war with chris christie, it seems to me that their loving of a winner is somehow losing out. >> i think that is shown, with them inviting mitt romney instead, and since you also got

invited. i think you're exactly right. >> chris christie and i will be drinking in the hotel bar somewhere, during cpac, we'll send a form letter. >> no, i think you're right about that. he said some not so conservative positions from the beginning of the governorship. but he was so bombasic, he was out there in terms of rhetoric, they fell in love with this guy. >> absolutely, taking the huge amount of federal money. >> he really did go after the teacher's unions, and really about balance the budget, quote unquote, without raising taxes. he has been a conservative governor but has not been crazy. and it is not an accident that he is so popular and he is not tied to the national republican party. so by not inviting him to cpac it is just another way for him to be distanced from the national republican party, which is so toxic. >> i think it is important to

keep in mind, though, when you look at the polls in new jersey, the approval rating is somewhere between 95 and 99%. >> he is managing to pull it off politically right now. >> right, the parts of his record that people in new jersey care about, the state budget, health care, the pensions, things like that, i think he has done things to satisfy them. also, i think he makes a strong argument about why you would take the medicaid expansion dollars. because it is money, you're paying the federal taxes anyway, the question is are we going to accept the money or not? he has been able to make the sale, and others are just obsessed. >> and uniting republicans in the past elections was their disdain for the president, so when he embraced vocally, for him, went across the line that they wanted him to cross.

>> and in the days with george w. bush, i think i would hold a grudge, too, i would view that as a type of betrayal. >> well, i think it depends on the circumstances. in a way, i would. but if you look at the public polling, democrats are much more in general, they want to see compromise from elected officials. and republicans are much more, they want to see them sticking to their principles. >> and the fascinating thing, at the federal level doesn't seem to be any. but there is really a concrete score card now for the pragmatipragmati pragmatism, you have surprising people like tom corbett, in a blue state with a lot of people who could benefit from the expansion. jan brew isser on the side of

expansion. how do you interpret that fault line? is there sense to be made of these two buckets, that they're dropping into. chris christie, on the side or not of expansion. >> rick scott was a hospital executive. >> and the hospital executives came to the floor of the house and were like bro. >> right, the big lobby, somebody from national review were saying i don't think people who want medicaid are a powerful lobby. and so i think that helps explain rick scott. it is interesting, you have this cluster in the southwest, written new mexi -- where in, new mexico, and nevada, they have all taken the money. there is something interesting. >> you have susanna martinez and sandoval in new mexico, who are bright stars in the republican party. they have ideas already that

would disqualify. >> sandoval doesn't push for a tax increase, so i think he has already blown that with republicans nationally. but i think there are two considerations for when you're deciding to take the money, one, the substantive policy, you're screwing the state if you don't% take the money. >> thank you, chris. coming up, the rapid shift in politics and public opinion, post newtown. toothpaste. use it with these 3d white products, and whiten your teeth in just 2 days. new crest 3d white toothpaste. life opens up when you do. it fills you with energy... and it gives you what you are looking for to live a more natural life. in a convenient two bar pack. this is nature valley. nature at its most delicious.

♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz.

get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz. there is a very simple solution to the sequester, and it is one sentence long, that sentence is up next. and what michael bloomberg did that has shifted politics post-newtown. coming up. you're crazy. go faster! go faster! go faster! go faster! no! stop...stop... (mom) i raised my son to be careful... hi, sweetie. hi, mom. (mom) but just to be safe...

i got a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, please? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's in your wallet?

okay, this we know to be absolutely totally and 100% true about the $85 billion in sequester cuts that are ready to kick off on friday. a whole lot of politicos on both sides say they don't want them to happen. >> the president laid out no plan to eliminate the sequester and the harmful cuts that will come as a result of it. >> most people don't even know what sequester means, sequestration equals unemployment. sequestration, we don't want it. >> there is no question that these cuts are going to be painful, and they are thoughtless. >> and what sequestration is, it is a terrible way to cut

spending, i don't disagree with that. what you hear is an outrage, because nobody wants to cut spending. >> there is no reason this has to happen, we just need to find a balanced approach, there is no reason we should be playing these kind of brinksmanship. >> there is no question, if we actually prioritize spending. >> could we talk about tom coburn's outfits and amazing look these days? okay, maybe later, so if there are a whole lot of legislators who don't want to see this happen, why does it seem like we're happening? especially, the way they're proliferating all over washington, d.c. essentially, the white house has a plan's on the white house website including $1.8 trillion in new deficit reduction, lots of cuts and new revenues. even a one-page cheat sheet. and both have their own plans,

scheduled for a vote in the senate. the republican solution would maintain cuts as is, but gives president obama far greater flexibility for issues deemed important to security, like airport and traffic control security. it would delay the calendar year, off setting the cuts and tax increases. but none of the solutions would pass both chambers of congress to make their way to the white house and the president because there is not enough support for any of the proposals. well, i am here to tell you the good news, which is there is a system, clean solution that would stop the cuts that almost everyone doesn't want to happen. the bill was introduced called the balancing act, which would cancel the sequester, and replace it with a plan that would make responsible cuts to the budget. and again, they argue it would create a million jobs. realizing that in a republican house that sort of plan is going

nowhere fast. the congressional caucus suggested something even simpler. this is not a cancel or replace plan. this week, they pushed the deal that if nobody can agree what to replace the sequester with, it should be cancelled. keith ellis of minnesota reads, if congress can't come up with a replacement for the sequester before the end of the week, we should eliminate the sequester entirely. if this goes into effect, this would be one of the largest legislative failure in the history of the republic, capital "r." in other words, pass a bill that would stop this bill that nobody wants to happen, happen. game over, one-line bill, pass it. again, remember how many people on capitol hill were on the record saying the sequester is really a bad idea. no matter who they're blaming for it. so why wouldn't the republican-controlled house take on the progressive plan? what is stopping them? i think it is pretty simple.

deep down, the republicans want the sequester cuts to happen. but they don't want to take all the blame for doing it. coming up, what michael bloomberg had to do with the congressional primary in illinois and why it says so much about the post-newtown politics in america, that is next. but after one day's use, dishcloths can redeposit millions of germs. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to a fresh sheet of new bounty duratowel. look! a fresh sheet of bounty duratowel leaves this surface cleaner than a germy dishcloth, as this black light reveals. it's durable, cloth-like and it's 3 times cleaner. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to new bounty duratowel. the durable, cloth-like picker-upper. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to new bounty duratowel. with an intuitive motion activated lid and seat,ad bold makes sure you'll never have to ask him again. i love the fact that quicken loans provides va loans.

quicken loans understood the details and guided me through every step of the process. i know wherever the military sends me, i can depend on quicken loans. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ [ coughs ] [ baby crying ] ♪ [ male announcer ] robitussin® liquid formula soothes your throat on contact and the active ingredient relieves your cough. robitussin®. don't suffer the coughequences™. did you know not all fiber is the same? citrucel is different-

it's the only fiber for regularity that won't cause excess gas. it's gentle and clinically proven to help restore and maintain regularity. look for citrucel today.

polit . jesse was the love of my life. he was -- the only family i had left. it is hard for me to be here today. to talk about -- my deceased son. i have to. i'm his voice. i'm not here for the sympathy, and a pat on the back. there are many people that stated in the town of newtown. i'm here to speak up for my son.

>> that was neil heslin, father of jesse lewis, one of the 22 children massacred last month in newtown. he was there asking for the high capacity weapons to be banned. also, the doctor was there that responded to the newtown shooting. >> people say that the overall number of assault weapon deaths is relatively small. but you know what, please don't say that to people in newtown, columbine, or virginia tech, this is a tipping point. >> seems to be a tipping point for the public, too. a new wall street journal poll says that people favor stricter gun sale laws, up from 5% just last month. it is people shifting the calculus of who is going to give you money, your opponent money,

and what re-election will look like depending on the position you take. yesterday we got a first post-newtown image on what it looked like. robin kelly won 52% of the vote. she had a little help from new york city's michael bloomberg, in charge of the pro-gun attack. former congresswoman debbie halvorson was beaten by her. >> you sent a message by the state and across the nation. a message that tells the nra that their days of holding our country hostage are coming to an end. >> joining me now, new york city deputy mayor for government affairs and community affairs,

thank you for joining us. >> well, this was a special election, the only race going on right now. it is a race that was playing out in the middle of this very important gun debate in washington. so there was going to be a lot of attention placed on this race. and when we looked at the race and saw that former congresswoman, debbie halvorson, who had as you mentioned, an a-rating from the nra, was poised to lead. the mayor said we can't have that. somebody going to congress and being a vote for the nra. >> in some ways, this district is an interesting one, because there was kind of a mis-match between debbie halvorson on the issue. >> because of that, former congresswoman halvorson began in the lead and could have won, i think had -- not quite congresswoman -- congresswoman apparent kelly not run a very

strong race, and had the mayor not gone in and made sure the voters knew about former congresswoman halvorson's record on the nra issues. >> i want to play a little sound bite talking about the role that mayor bloomberg and the super pac played. >> the biggest issue in the race was dumping a million to support one candidate. we can't let the democratic party cannibalize the democratic party for ulterior motives for the future. if this is the democratic party then we are all in big trouble. >> i'm curious how you respond to that. >> well, you know, there were comments up to the race that there could be a back lash, the fact that the mayor spent the money, the fact is that the party he was backing got 54% of the vote. the