Yes, the last two weeks haven't been kind to the Obama White House. Yes, the administration has found itself on the defensive -- regarding the IRS, Benghazi and leak-investigation controversies. And, yes, those stories aren't going way.

But it's also unclear if these controversies are political winners for the Republican Party.

In addition to new polls showing that President Obama's approval rating remains above 50 percent after these stories first surfaced, a Washington Post/ABC survey suggests that Republicans are suffering from a focus deficit.

According to the poll, just 33 percent of Americans believe congressional Republicans are mainly concentrating on matters that are personally important to them, while 60 percent say they aren’t.

By comparison, 51 percent say Obama is mainly focusing on things important to them, versus 44 percent who disagree -- matching his approval rating in the poll

And 43 percent of respondents think congressional Democrats are concentrating on matters of importance, compared with 50 percent who say they're not.

Bottom line: The public believes that Obama and the Democrats are focusing more on the issues they care about than Republicans are. 

Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru reaches a similar conclusion in his latest column.

[Republicans] have no real health-care agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.

Congressional Republicans were right to press for hearings on all of these issues. But investigations of the administration won’t supply them with ideas. They won’t make the public trust Republicans. They won’t save them from themselves.

Political observer Charlie Cook adds:

But at what point do [Republicans] decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side?

Yet a problem for Republicans -- if they decide to turn their attention to other issues -- is that Republicans really care about these controversies.

According to a separate Pew poll, 37 percent of Republicans are following the IRS story very closely (compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents), while 34 percent of Republicans are following the Benghazi investigation closely (versus 18 percent of Democrats and 26 of indies).

So Republicans might find themselves trapped in this box: They really want to focus on these controversies, and their voters do, too. But others want the GOP to concentrate their attention elsewhere.

The Associated Press reports that the Internal Revenue Service says it gave extra scrutiny to organizations with the names "Tea Party" or "Patriot" seeking tax-exempt status.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service is apologizing for inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.

Lerner said the practice, initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati, was wrong and she apologized while speaking at a conference in Washington.

Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They said the agency asked them an inordinate number of questions to justify their tax-exempt status.

Certain tax-exempt charitable groups can conduct political activities but it cannot be their primary activity.

UPDATE: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement calling for the Obama administration to conduct a review of "these thuggish practices":

“Today’s acknowledgement by the Obama administration that the IRS did in fact target conservative groups in the heat of last year’s national election is not enough. Today, I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views.

Last year, amid reports that the Obama administration was using the levers of executive power to harass conservative political groups in Kentucky and elsewhere, I issued a very public warning to the administration that the targeting of private citizens on the basis of their political views would not be tolerated. Today’s apology by the IRS is proof that those concerns were well founded. But make no mistake, an apology won’t put this issue to rest. Now more than ever we need to send a clear message to the Obama Administration that the First Amendment is non-negotiable, and that apologies after an election year are not an sufficient response to what we now know took place at the IRS. This kind of political thuggery has absolutely no place in our politics.”

In another finding from the new NBC News/Marist poll, 55 percent of Virginia residents say they want stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus 36 percent who want them left the same.

Reflecting Virginia's status as a key national swing state -- President Obama twice won it by the same margin he won the national popular vote -- those numbers are virtually identical to the national ones from the April NBC/WSJ poll.

But there are fascinating political, demographic and geographic differences inside these numbers.

Eighty-two percent of Democrats in Virginia want stricter gun laws, compared with 56 percent of independents and just 29 percent of Republicans.

What's more, only 30 percent of gun owners and 38 percent of those living in households with guns favor stricter gun laws, suggesting a deep divide on this issue between gun owners and non-gun owners.

But that's not the only split: 68 percent of women in the state want stricter gun laws, versus just 41 percent of men who do.

And there's geography. A whopping 70 percent of those living in the Northern Virginian suburbs just outside of Washington, D.C., support stricter gun laws. That's compared with the Northern Virginian exurbs (49 percent), the central and western part of the state (49 percent), the Richmond area (49 percent), and the Tidewater region (59 percent).

The NBC/Marist poll was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,218 adults in Virginia, and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 2.8 percentage points.

For the second time in the past two weeks, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has knocked President Obama for failing to pass his agenda through Congress. 

"The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It’s called leadership," she wrote. 

Dowd isn't alone. At the president's news conference on Tuesday, ABC's Jonathan Karl asked, "Do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress?"

And in First Thoughts yesterday, we wrote about how the president's priorities -- outside of immigration reform -- have stalled.

But here's the simple truth for all political writers and armchair pundits to understand: This is what happens when you have divided government.

Indeed, the greatest legislative achievements in American history have come when one party controls the White House and Congress -- usually by overwhelming numbers.

In the 1930s, as Congress was passing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Democrats held between 69 and 75 Senate seats, as well as 300-plus House seats.

In 1965, during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Democrats controlled 68 Senate and 290-plus House seats.

Talk about supermajorities.

Even the top legislative accomplishments under Obama -- the stimulus, the health-care law, financial reform, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal -- came when Democrats held 60 Senate seats (or close to it) and a majority in the House.

But when there's divided government? That's typically a recipe for gridlock.

The exceptions have come when at least one party has had an incentive to compromise -- think Bill Clinton signing welfare reform into law before his re-election, or the tax cuts under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (who doesn't like tax cuts?), or immigration reform (so far) under Obama. 

They've also come when it's an absolute necessity to compromise -- think the Social Security fix during the 1980s, the debt-ceiling deal in 2011, and the fiscal-cliff deal at the end of 2012.

But that's about it under divided government. And Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) suggested why in a recent talk explaining the defeat of the gun-control compromise he co-authored. “In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it."

So why is there this misperception about a president's powers on domestic policy when there's divided government?

Much of it comes from the president's dual roles -- as both head of state (think a king or queen) and head of government (think prime minister or chancellor). As head of state, the president rallies the nation during times of adversity, consoles it during times of tragedy, and tries to shape public opinion when he can.

But as head of government, the president's powers are limited, especially when it comes to domestic policy. As the late academic Richard Neustadt put it, the president has the power to persuade, cajole, and bargain; outside of that, his powers in domestic affairs are surprisingly weak. 

And that's particularly true when a president's party doesn't control all the branches of government.

As Maureen Dowd said about a current Oval Office occupant: "The ... Presidency that began with such grandiose designs has become so becalmed, so shrunken, so defeated, so aimless, so anomic, so technical that George Bush now looms as a giant who bestrode the earth."

She wrote that about Bill Clinton in 1997 -- at another time of divided government just after a president's re-election.

In Virginia's still-early gubernatorial contest, the two major candidates both have their shortcomings.

Republican Ken Cuccinelli is attacked for being too conservative on social issues (especially in a state Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012), while the negative caricature of Democrat Terry McAuliffe is that he's a slick and wealthy politico who has tenuous ties to the state.

And both men are addressing their flaws -- head on -- in their first TV ads.

A week after Cuccinelli released his first advertisement with a testimonial from his wife ("My husband Ken has spent his life standing up for the vulnerable and those in need..."), McAuliffe is now up with his own ad.

"I’m the youngest of four boys and when I was fourteen I saw a chance to literally pave the way to my future and I started a business paving driveways," the former DNC chairman says in the ad. "That helped me pay for college."

He continues, "My wife Dorothy and I have lived in Virginia for over 20 and here we’ve raised five children of our own. I know nothing is more important to Virginians than creating good jobs that can support a family. That will be my focus every day."

Meanwhile, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is airing his first TV ad of his 2013 re-election bid -- a $1.2 million buy -- and it has a heavy emphasis on his role after Hurricane Sandy.

"But the most important thing he did has little to do with numbers, statistics or even politics, he made us proud to say we’re from New Jersey," the ad goes.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed doubts that the nation's highest court should have ruled on the controversial Bush v. Gore case that decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board on Friday. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

The Tribune has more from O'Connor:

The case, she said, "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."

"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," she said. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."

O'Connor, who was appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan in 1981, was part of the 5-4 majority deciding to stop the recount in the crucial battleground state of Florida.

On MSNBC's "Jansing &Co.," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said he has "no intention" to run for Florida governor next year.

"Look, I have no plans to run for governor. I have no intention of running for governor," said Nelson, who won re-election last November. "I love this job as senator, except that I am very, very frustrated as we have discussed this morning -- that we can't get anything done because you can't get people together to build consensus."

Nelson's statement comes after Roll Call quoted a "senior Democratic official" who said that the senator was considering challenging Republican Gov. Rick Scott.

“It’s on the way to being fairly serious. I think he is going to take a very close look at it,” a senior Florida Democratic official told CQ Roll Call. “It’s not very far along. I wouldn’t tell you it’s likely ... [but] I think he will really look at it.”

First Read confirms that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., will not run for re-election in 2014. The news was first reported by the Washington Post.

Baucus, 71, who was first elected in 1978, currently chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee. He recently angered liberals when he voted against the background-check measure on gun control.

Baucus' decision gives Republicans a key pick-up opportunity in Montana -- where President Obama won just 42 percent of the vote in 2012.

However, a Democrat familiar with former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer's thinking says the former governor is leaning toward running for Baucus' seat, which would give Democrats a solid chance at holding onto the seat. 

So far this cycle, six Senate Democrats have announced they won't seek re-election -- Baucus, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. And two Republicans have announced their upcoming retirements -- Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Mike Johanns of Nebraska.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:06 AM EDT

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is going up with a new TV ad hitting Republican Mark Sanford in South Carolina's special congressional election.

And the DCCC ad throws the kitchen sink at Sanford -- the affair with the Argentine mistress, misusing taxapayer money, the Appalachian Trail.

"Mark Sanford walked out on us," the advertisement goes, showing the image of someone hiking. It continues that Sanford "violated our trust, secretly used thousands of taxpayer dollars flying to Argentina -- and then lied about it."

"Now he wants our trust again? Maybe Mark Sanford should just keep walking."

The ad buy (April 19-28 at $205,000) is in the Charleston and Savannah markets, per the DCCC.

The ad comes as House Majority PAC, a Democratic Super PAC, is airing a similar TV advertisement against Sanford, while the former South Carolina governor is hitting Democratic nominee Elizabeth Colbert Busch with an ad tying to her to unions.

The general election is on May 7.

Former President George W. Bush has returned to the news -- in both big and small ways.

He's a brand-new grandfather after his daughter Jenna gave birth to a baby girl.

He recently gave a wide-ranging interview to the Dallas Morning News, in which he reflected on his two terms in the White House. “Much of my presidency was defined by things that you didn’t necessarily want to have happen,” he said, citing the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

More controversially, a new nonpartisan report concludes that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the United States practiced torture and that "the nation's highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it," the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

And next week, he'll make a public appearance -- along with the other living presidents, past and present -- at the dedication of his presidential library in Dallas, Texas on April 25.

But as Bush is back, the same can't be said of his overall popularity.

According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, conducted April 5-8, 35 percent of Americans view him favorably, versus 44 percent who view him negatively.

Those numbers are virtually unchanged from the five other NBC/WSJ polls that have measured Bush since the summer of 2010, although they're an improvement from when he left office (31 percent fav/58 percent unfav).

Indeed, out of the six public figures the current NBC/WSJ poll measured -- including President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and New York City Michael Bloomberg -- Bush had the worst net fav/unfav score.

Yet buried inside Bush's poll numbers is a striking finding: He fares well among the demographic groups that have favored Republicans, including defeated 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and he performs poorly among the demographic groups with whom Republicans have struggled.

The subgroups that have a net-positive view of Bush are Republicans (65 percent favorable/14 percent unfavorable), conservatives (60 percent/19 percent), seniors (48 percent/31 percent), rural Americans (43 percent/35 percent), Southerners (43 percent/37 percent), and whites (40 percent/39 percent).

But he is deeply unpopular among most other subgroups, including the biggest parts of Obama’s coalition -- 18-34 year olds (26 percent/46 percent), African Americans (19 percent/64 percent), and Latinos (27 percent/44 percent). In fact, Bush’s worst age group is the 18 to 34 year old, and his best are seniors.

He also has a net-negative with the swing demographic groups: suburban residents (37 percent/41 percent) and independents (30 percent/45 percent).

And while Bush has a net-positive rating in the South, he’s negative everywhere else: Northeast (30 percent/53 percent), Midwest (32 percent/46 percent), and West (32 percent/42 percent).

In other words, if you want more evidence of the Republican Party’s demographic strengths -- and demographic weaknesses -- look no further than these poll numbers.

When the Tea Party movement made its official debut on April 15, 2009, it made quite a political splash with events across the country protesting President Obama's policies on that Tax Day.

Four years later, that splash looks more like pebble thrown into a pond.

Yesterday, Tea Party groups held events tied to this year’s Tax Day. The group FreedomWorks, for example, organized an "action day" at the U.S. Capitol (which took place before the Boston bombings).

But judged by its sparse attendance -- dozens, not thousands, attended the FreedomWorks rally -- the Tea Party is no longer a national force shaking American politics, although it has continued to influence today's Republican Party.

Over the past four years, Tea Party's political impact on the Republican Party and conservatism has been a mixed record.

There is little doubt that the Tea Party injected energy and enthusiasm into a Republican Party and conservatism after losing the 2008 presidential election. And that helped Republicans win the U.S. House and pick up Senate seats in the 2010 midterms.

The Tea Party also shaped the platform that the GOP's presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, campaigned on. (Look no further than these remarks from Romney's presidential kick-off speech in June 2011: "I will insist that Washington learns to respect the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment. We will return responsibility and authority to the states for dozens of government programs.")

But the same energy and enthusiasm that moved the GOP to the right also contributed to the party losing winnable Senate seats in 2010 and 2012 (like in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, and Nevada). 

And the platform Romney campaigned on in 2012 turned out to be the losing one.

One reason why the Tea Party, four years later, has moved from a political force to relative afterthought is its unpopularity. According to a Jan. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll, only 23 percent of Americans viewed the Tea Party positively, versus 47 percent who viewed it negatively – down from its net-positive 28 percent-to-21 percent rating in Jan. 2010. (But the same 2013 poll found the Tea Party still remains popular among GOP respondents.)

Another reason was a story like this one -- about FreedomWorks -- from late last year:

“The day after Labor Day, just as campaign season was entering its final frenzy, FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization, went into free fall. Richard K. Armey, the group’s chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group’s Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey’s enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks’ top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news.”

Yet perhaps the biggest explanation for the difference between four years ago and now is because the Republican Party essentially co-opted the movement.

Consider the Tea Party's calls for balanced budgets, liberty, states’ rights, and the elimination of earmarks -- they're all staples of today's GOP.

(Of course, this isn't too dissimilar from how some of Occupy Wall Street's populist rhetoric and language was co-opted by Democrats and President Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign.)

And that's what often happens to social movements, according to some political scientists: The major political parties co-opt them.

So while attendance at a Tea Party rally might decline four years later, its ideas and platforms have become fixtures of American politics.