“The state budget squeeze is fast becoming a city budget squeeze, as struggling states around the nation plan deep cuts in aid to cities and local governments that will almost certainly result in more service cuts, layoffs and local tax increases,” the New York Times writes.

IOWA: “Thomas Beaumont, a veteran chronicler of presidential politics and the Iowa Caucuses, has been named Des Moines Correspondent for The Associated Press.”

FLORIDA: The Florida Federation of Republican Women passed a resolution calling on the state to follow the RNC primary rules and not move its primary earlier than March, the St. Petersburg Times writes.

 “Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that if Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) loses his reelection race next year, it means President Obama and the Democratic presidential ticket won't win the key battleground state, either,” The Hill writes.

INDIANA: “The leader of the boycotting Indiana House Democrats returned to the Statehouse on Wednesday for what he called a ‘very positive’ meeting with Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma,” AP writes, adding, "It's possibly the beginning of the end," Bosma said. "It's a positive step that he returned to the Statehouse. I think that's great."

NEW YORK: NY-26: “Just a year ago, Curtis Ellis penned an opinion piece that described tea party members as ‘self-absorbed, privileged children.’ Today, Ellis is the chief spokesman and campaign manager for Jack Davis, the wealthy businessman running on the ‘Tea Party’ line in New York’s 26th district special election,” Roll Call writes. “Davis may have some questions to answer about his campaign manager’s past criticism of the very movement he now hopes will propel him to victory.”

AP

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill earlier this month. Boehner sent a letter to Obama criticizing his handling of Libya.

“In a letter made public as the president returned from his Latin American trip, Mr. Boehner said the administration had sent conflicting messages about its goals in Libya. He said the public deserved a fuller explanation of the objectives of the military mission and how the White House will measure success,” the New York Times’s Hulse writes, adding, “Earlier, Mr. Boehner had struck a more neutral tone, saying America had a “moral obligation” to help opponents of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi while urging the White House to define its intent. But Wednesday’s letter illustrated mounting Congressional wariness over the use of force without fuller participation by the House and Senate as well as uncertainty over how long American military units would lead the military action.”

Politico picks up on it as well: “The letter is a far sharper critique of the president’s handling of the affair than Boehner has offered. It makes clear that Republicans, at least in the House, will play an oppositional role for the White House as the situation in Libya unfolds.”

Meanwhile Senate Democrats Carl Levin (MI), Jack Reed (RI) and Dick Durbin (IL) held a conference call yesterday to defend President Obama’s Libya campaign. Politico points out they’re among the few congressional leaders in either party to strongly support the action so far.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put out this statement on Libya yesterday: “Acting upon the United Nations Security Council's resolution to use ‘all measures necessary’ to protect the Libyan people and the Arab League's call for a no-fly-zone, the United States joined the international community in preventing an imminent humanitarian crisis in Libya. Actions taken by the international community have already prevented Qaddafi from implementing his threat to ‘show no mercy’ to his own people, including those living in the city of Benghazi. Decisions made in the days ahead are strengthened by our NATO partners’ participation. U.S. participation is strengthened by the President's continued consultation with Congress.”

President Obama’s health-care bill was signed into law one year ago today. So what provisions have already taken effect? And what’s still to come?

Here's the link for the the full video. For more, check out our expanded post on health care one year later.

Video edited by Domenico Montanaro and Ali Weinberg.

From NBC’s Lauren Stephenson
Elizabeth Taylor may be remembered as a legendary on-screen starlet, but she also played the role of a senator's wife.  Taylor's sixth husband, former Sen. John Warner, remembered the Hollywood legend on Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, reminiscing not only about his marriage and life-long friendship with the actress, but also her role in his campaign for office: "I would say she was my ‘partner’ in what appeared to be an impossible political challenge for the United States Senate."

Warner, who said his former wife's "heart and soul were just as beautiful as her classic face and majestic eyes," was elected to the Senate in 1978 after Richard D. Obenshain, Virginia’s Republican nominee for the seat, was killed in a plane crash.

"The party turned to us and hand-in-hand we marched off with no campaign staff, no funds were raised and we had but nine weeks to put together a campaign which we did and won it, narrowly," Warner told Andrea Mitchell.

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

He said he was forever indebted to Taylor for her work on his campaigns. "That laid the foundation for a career of five terms, 30 years in the United States Senate, so you can understand the profound gratitude I have in my heart and memories for this extraordinary woman."

Despite their divorce in 1982 after five years of marriage, Warner said Taylor would call him to make sure he was supporting HIV/AIDS legislation, an issue the actress championed: "Even after we were separated we'd talk, 'Now that vote's coming up,' and I'd say, 'I'm with you.'"

The former senator expressed his appreciation for Taylor's friendship: "It was an extraordinary chapter in my life as it's been in the lives of many, many millions of Americans and people all over the world who enjoyed her films, herself and her contributions to the betterment of mankind."

From NBC’s Catherine Chomiak
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich had harsh words for the Obama administration regarding Libya this morning on TODAY.

“This isn’t serious standard,” he said of the humanitarian reasons for going into Libya. “This is a public relations standard.” He added, “The president of the United States does not report to the United Nations.” And: “By this standard, we could get engaged in all sorts of places,” including Sudan. On Khaddafy, Gingrich said, “If this is not designed to get rid of Khaddafy, then this makes no sense at all.” On whether he would have engaged in this operation, Gingrich said flatly, “I would not have intervened. There were a lot of other ways” to deal with Khaddafy. And, he said, if Khaddafy stays in power, “it will be a defeat for the United States. …

“This is about as badly run as any foreign operation in our lifetime.”

He made similar comments in an appearance on Fox last night. Gingrich said multiple times that the Obama administration doesn't know what it is doing and that there is a “lack of sophisticated planning,” “lack of professionalism,” and “lack of leadership” in dealing with the situation.

"President Obama is going to have to answer questions, because his current policy is so incoherent and so confused that it is literally indefensible," Gingrich said. "This is as badly executed, I think, as any policy we've seen since WWII, and it will become a case study for how not to engage in this type of activity," he added.

When asked about the interactions between the executive branch and the legislative one, Gingrich said, “I think this has been so badly organized and so badly planned that they have now burned a lot of bridges in Congress and I think they can't with a straight face claim to have seriously consulted the Congress and that's a huge mistake. Presidents have to have some kind of support from the congress if they're going to be able to sustain a national security of foreign policy."

Turning to Gingrich’s own potential political aspirations, he said this situation and others make him think more seriously about a presidential bid. “The obligation as a citizen to seriously consider it (the presidency) gets higher when you look at the current damage being done, but this administration on so many different fronts.”

We wrote yesterday about the Tampa mayoral runoff. Here’s an update:

Tampa, the host city of the 2012 Republican national convention, has a new mayor: Democrat Bob Buckhorn.

The former city councilman beat pharmacist/county commissioner Rose Ferlita (R), winning almost 63% to Ferlita’s 37% in the runoff election, the Tampa Tribune reports. Buckhorn, who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2003, succeeds the winner of that race, Pam Iorio (D), who was term-limited after eight years as mayor. Ferlita said she would likely return to working as a pharmacist for CVS.

The search for ‘clarity’ in Libya… Obama skips tour of Mayan ruins, returns to Washington early to political storm … Trump to Iowa … RAND Paul testing the waters … Bachmann, RON Paul in Iowa … Gingrich in Houston … Palin in Florida … Barbour, Pawlenty, Romney together New Hampshire ... Today's the one-year anniversary of the signing of the health-care bill into law. See our expanded post on it.

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg, and Carrie Dann
*** Searching for 'clarity': Speaking of events that have dominated since health care, Libya is the story (and war) du jour. The president on the final leg of his Latin America swing in El Salvador yesterday said he has “absolutely no doubt" that command of the Libyan operation will be handed over to an international coalition. And said nothing’s changed his mind on that being in “days not weeks.” He added that "clarity" would come in days. (By the way, it’s now been five days since “days not weeks” first appeared in print.) President Obama said there are already fewer U.S. planes involved in the Libya operation and added, "We've already saved lives" in Benghazi. "Unless [Khaddafy] changes his approach" and there are significant reforms in Libyan government, he's a threat to his people, Obama said. What would the U.S.’s role be once control is handed over? "It is not going to be our planes" enforcing the no-fly zone, Obama said; it's not going to be "our ships" enforcing the arms embargo. In what may be a recognition of the political difficulty back home, the president heads back to Washington earlier than scheduled. He’ll skip touring Mayan ruins -- and a political beehive awaits. (NBC’s Pete Williams examined whether President Obama violated the Constitution with his action on Libya.)

*** America's national interest in Libya: In response to a question from NBC's Savannah Guthrie, the president offered a rather expansive rationale for his actions in Libya. The first part of his answer was familiar: "[T]he American people and the United States have an interest first of all in making sure that where a brutal dictator is threatening his people and saying he will show no mercy and go (inaudible) hunting people down and we have the capacity under international sanction to do something about that, I think it's in America's international-- America's national interest to do something about it. That doesn't mean that we can solve every problem in the world. It does mean that when you have not only the United Nations but also the Arab League and also other countries in the Gulf who are saying we need to intercede to make sure that a disaster doesn't happen on our watch -- as has happened in the past when the international community stood idly by -- it is in America's national interest to participate in that."

*** It's the SECOND part of his answer that was new: "Now we've already seen what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, peaceful transitions. We have a huge national interest in making sure that those are successful, because if Egypt can make a transition from a[n] autocratic regime to a democracy, if Tunisia can make those same changes, they become models for a peaceful transition that at some point may be adopted by other countries in the region. If on the other hand, they spill into chaos, in part, because they've got a million … Libyans who are pouring into these countries, and their borders become less secure, and there's a breakdown of order -- that could have spillover effects in the entire region. So not only do we have a humanitarian interest, but we also have a very practical interest in making sure that the changes that are sweeping through that region are occurring in a peaceful, non-violent fashion, and when we can have some impact on that, with a relatively modest contribution as part of a broader international effort, then I absolutely believe that the costs are outweighed by the benefits, and that is what drove my decision, and that's why I think that we need to make sure that we see this through effectively."

*** On the trail: Donald Trump is heading to Iowa June 10 as the headline speaker for the Iowa GOP’s Lincoln Day dinner. (Trump said he would announce in June if he’s running for president.) By the way, if you want a good laugh, check out comedian Lewis Black making the case for Trump last night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. … Catch freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who’s been in office not quite three months, yesterday in South Carolina: “The only decision I've made is I won't run against my dad.” Is this from the Department of Too Soon? Seriously. Paul has already visited several early presidential states, and his father is mulling another bid. (Hat tip: Taegan Goddard). … Elsewhere: It’s Iowa Homeschool Day -- Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX) attend … Newt Gingrich is in Houston, touring the Open Door Mission at 4:00 pm ET … Sarah Palin makes a paid speech in Naples, FL, at 6:00 pm ET … Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), and Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) all appear together in Concord, NH, at an event honoring freshman Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH).

Countdown to continuing resolution’s expiration: 16 days
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 142 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 230 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 320 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

/

President Barack Obama signs the health care bill in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Health care -- one year later ... A nation still divided … and confused … Who’s left in Congress who voted for and against it … Where it stands in the courts … What’s ACTUALLY in effect … What will be and when … Bet you didn’t know … By the numbers

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg, Carrie Dann, and Kevin Hurd
*** Health care -- one year later: Today marks the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the health-care overhaul into law. That debate, the town halls, the process, and the late-night votes consumed every bit of the political oxygen for a year and were the subject of heated political rhetoric and spin (see: “Death panels,” pulling the plug on grandma, “government takeover,” socialism, and the public option). But look at what’s happened since (in order): the BP oil spill, the Greece riots, Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, floods in Pakistan, Democrats’ “shellacking” in the midterms, Republicans take control of the House, Rahm Emanuel becomes Chicago mayor, Bill Daley replaces him at the White House, a new press secretary, no more Michael Steele, Tucson, Tunisia, Egypt, Japan, and Libya.

*** A nation still divided…: Back to the health-care anniversary … the needle hasn’t moved all that much on the health-care bill’s popularity. In the most recent monthly tracking poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 42% of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of the bill compared to 46% who saw it unfavorably. In April 2010, just after the bill was signed, the numbers were a similar -- but more favorable -- 46%-40%. In November 2010, when the midterm elections put the politics of health care front and center, those numbers were 42%-40%. The 2010 exit polls, which reflected an electorate that voted to sweep Democrats out of power in the House, showed an equally split country -- with 47% saying it should either be expanded or left as is and 48% saying it should be repealed. Kaiser’s numbers are similar to the ones shown by our NBC/WSJ poll. In March 2010, right before the legislation passed, 46% said they supported passage, 45% opposed. That’s exactly the same breakdown as NBC/WSJ found 10 months later in January 2011 on a DIFFERENT question -- on whether they supported or opposed its repeal.

*** …And still equally confused: Polling indicates Americans continue to be confused about how the bill will impact them, what’s actually in it, what’s been implemented, and whether it’s been repealed. Kaiser shows that, as of March, 53% say they are “confused” about their feelings on the law. In April 2010, 55% said they were confused. That dipped to 42% by June, but then spiked back up to 53% by September, dipped again to 43% by December and ticked back up at the beginning of this year; 52% say that they don’t know enough about the legislation to understand how it will affect their lives. That’s about the same as April 2010, when 56% said so. Incredibly, almost half in February of this year said INCORRECTLY either the bill had been repealed (22%) or weren’t sure (26%).

*** Congress -- who’s left: Of the 219 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill, 171 remain. The four House Democrats who voted for the health-care bill and ran for Senate all lost. Of the 34 House Democrats who voted no, 14 remain. One, Charlie Melancon (LA-3) ran for the Senate and lost. Of the 56 Senate Democrats who voted for it, 46 remain, 11 of whom won re-election in 2010. Of the three Senate Democrats who voted against it, two remain. Only one -- Blanche Lincoln (AR) -- was up for re-election last year. And she lost. (Republicans point out that NO Senate Democrats voted against the bill the first time around on the Christmas Eve vote.) *** UPDATE *** Republicans also point out that "six of the last eight Senate Dems to decide whether to support the health care bill will either not run for reelection or have been beaten. The seventh will be in a dogfight this year and the eighth will likely be reelected barring something dramatic in Vermont: Lincoln – lost; Ben Nelson – will likely lose; Lieberman – retire; Bayh – retire; Webb – retire; Conrad – retire; Feingold (because it wasn’t liberal enough) – lost; Brown (D - OH) (because it wasn’t liberal enough) – ??; Sanders (because it wasn’t liberal enough) – ??"

*** Where it stands in the courts: Nearly two dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal court over the law, NBC’s Pete Williams reports. And while most have been dismissed on technical grounds, five resulted in decisions on the central issue -- whether the law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The five cases are pending before federal appeals courts, and one may reach the U.S. Supreme court during its next term. In three of those cases, filed in Virginia, Michigan, and Washington, D.C., judges said the law is constitutional. In the other two, brought by the states of Virginia and Florida, judges said Congress exceeded its powers in passing the law. The lawsuit filed by Florida was backed by 25 other states. Adding Virginia, that brings to 27 the number of states challenging the law’s constitutionality. Six more cases are pending in the lower courts.

*** How is the law affecting you RIGHT NOW? There were cries of, “Have you read the bill?” and “What’s in the bill?” which led to a lot of the confusion. Well, here’s some of what’s ACTUALLY in the bill that’s taken effect already or will this year, per NBC’s Betsy Cline and others:

- Children allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until their 26^th birthday.
- A 10% tax on indoor tanning services. (Sorry, Snooki.)
- Seniors receive a $250 rebate to help cover the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare drug coverage
- Free preventative care covered by Medicare and private plans. (So, when your company says, “Good news, you now get free health-care screenings, child well visits, physicals and other preventative care,” that comes from the health-care bill.)
- Nursing mothers to be allowed lactation breaks
- Insurance companies no longer allowed to discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions
- Government-run insurance plan set up for adults with preexisting conditions who are denied coverage
- Government-run long-term care program set up. For those who participate, people pay premiums for five years and then will receive benefits if they need them -- “whether they are 20-somethings in snowboard accidents or 80-somethings with Parkinson’s disease,” the New York Times wrote.
- Insurance companies barred from placing lifetime caps on benefits
- Insurance companies barred from dropping patients’ coverage when they get sick
- Insurance companies must prove they spend 80% to 85% of premium revenue on medical services.
- Insurance companies required to disclose rate increases (and the reason) of 10% or more
- Small businesses (with fewer than 50 employees) begin receiving tax credits covering 35% of premiums to help them buy coverage. (This credit jumps to 50% in 2014.)
- States receive billions in funding for community health centers
- Drug companies face $2.5 billion in fees (rises in later years)
- Creation of a government research institute created to examine the effectiveness of medical treatments
- Establishment of a Medicare Independent Advisory Board, which will be tasked with trying to keep Medicare spending down and submitting legislative proposals to do so. It will first submit recommendations in 2016.

*** How will it affect you IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS? If most of that sounds good (that is, unless you’re Snooki), Republicans will rightly argue the law was front-loaded with many of the positive parts. In 2013, new taxes and fees go into effect for individuals making more than $200,000 a year (and families making more than $250,000 a year), on dividends and interest, and on sales of medical devices. By 2014, the individual mandate goes into effect -- if you don’t have insurance, you have to buy it or face a fee. By 2016, that fee will be 2.5% of your income or $695 a year, whichever is more. (Kaiser has a helpful interactive timeline here.)

*** Bet you didn’t know…: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office yesterday passed around a quote from Starbucks’ CEO, who said, “I think as the bill is currently written and if it was going to land in 2014 under the current guidelines, the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great.” It’s true that by 2014, businesses with more than 100 employees will have to contribute to buying health insurance for their employees or face hefty fines (if at least one of their employees qualifies for tax credits, but not Medicaid). But, we bet you didn’t know that businesses with fewer than 50 employees NEVER have to buy health insurance for their employees, per the White House.

*** By the numbers: For all your quick facts needs, here’s a health care, by numbers (gathered from published reports, the Kaiser Family Foundation, government health-care Web sites, the Department of Health and Human Services, and White House “fact sheets”):

- $2.8 billion: Dollars distributed so far to states to implement the law.
- $241 million: Dollars given so far to six states and a “coalition of states” in “Early Innovator” grants
- $50 million: Dollars to go out this year for five-year medical malpractice grants to go out this year to states to “develop, implement, and evaluate alternatives to current tort litigations”
- $50 million: Dollars in grants sent to states to establish exchanges
- $46 million: Dollars in grants so far to states to address insurance rate increases
- 4 million: People received $250 because they hit the Medicare “donut hole” since the law passed
- 12,000: People who were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions since the law was passed and were added to the government-run Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan
- 1,040: Waivers granted that allow companies to cap annual payouts at lower levels than the original law orders
- 219: House Democrats voted for the health-care bill
- 171: House Democrats remain in Congress
- 63: House seats Democrats lost in the 2010 midterms
- 56: Senate Democrats voted for the bill
- 53: Percent who say they’re still confused by the law
- 48: Percent who say they think the law has either been repealed (22%) or aren’t sure (26%)
- 46: Democrats who voted for the bill remain in the Senate
- 38: States whose legislatures have proposed measures opposing elements of health reform
- 27: States have challenged the constitutionality of the law
- 26: Percent who say they’re not sure if the health-care law has been repealed
- 22: Percent who say incorrectly that the health-care law has been repealed
- 6: States -- Nevada, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, and Iowa -- all have applied for waivers and are being reviewed
- 6: Cases pending in lower courts challenging the health-care law
- 5: Health-care lawsuits taken up by the courts out of the dozens of cases that were filed -- most centered on the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to buy health insurance
- 3: Steps the Small Business Administration created for small businesses to apply for or see if they qualify for government subsidies. The SBA claims, “Four million of the nation’s six million small businesses that employ workers could be eligible for these credits.”
- 3: Court decisions in court in favor of the administration
- 2: Court decisions against the administration.
- 1: State -- Maine has undergone the full process to get approval for a waiver on the 80%-85% provision of the health-care law. It got the provision adjusted to 65% through 2012. The reason for approval, per HHS: “The main insurance company that provides coverage for about” one-third of the 37,000 people on the individual market “said they may leave the market if they are required to meet the higher standard.”
- 1: Other state -- New Hampshire -- is farthest along in its waiver process and has a hearing set for Thursday.

President Obama is still working with allies to determine what role the other members of the coalition against Libya will play after the United States steps back from its leading role. He also had to call the emir of Qatar, the only Arab state to offer fighter jets to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, to nail down that leader’s support. “The tension and confusion laid bare the unwieldiness of the coalition -- which American officials conceded had been put together on the fly — even four days into the operation,” the New York Times writes.

Maureen Dowd: “They are called the Amazon Warriors, the Lady Hawks, the Valkyries, the Durgas. There is something positively mythological about a group of strong women swooping down to shake the president out of his delicate sensibilities and show him the way to war. And there is something positively predictable about guys in the White House pushing back against that story line for fear it makes the president look henpecked. … Whatever the reason, the spinners were so afraid that the president would seem to be a ditherer chased by Furies that they went so far as to argue that three of the women were not even in the room for The Decision. So the women were in their place? Where, the kitchen?”

The Times’ Thomas Friedman makes the distinction between Arab rebellions in “real countries” with strong national identities (like Egypt) and “tribes with flags,” or states with arbitrary boundaries in which various tribes and sects have found themselves living together (like Libya). “Libya is just the front-end of a series of moral and strategic dilemmas we are going to face as these Arab uprisings proceed through the tribes with flags…But we need to be more cautious. What made the Egyptian democracy movement so powerful was that they owned it. The Egyptian youth suffered hundreds of casualties in their fight for freedom. And we should be doubly cautious of intervening in places that could fall apart in our hands, a là Iraq, especially when we do not know, a là Libya, who the opposition groups really are — democracy movements led by tribes or tribes exploiting the language of democracy?”    

Ali Suleiman Aujali, who quit his job as ambassador to Libya when he broke with Col. Khaddafy in late February, has set up a diplomatic shop at his home, a suite in the Watergate, the New York Times writes. “‘I’m not representing the regime anymore -- I’m representing the people,’ Mr. Aujali declared, dandling his 15-month-old grandson on his knee… Mr. Aujali, who has served Libya for 40 years, is part of an extraordinary wave of sudden ex-diplomats who, depending on one’s point of view, are exhibiting uncommon courage or a savvy instinct for self-preservation.”

Washington Post: “The State Department announced Tuesday that it will give $20 million to Tunisia to help build its new democracy, boosting to more than $170 million the total in assistance for Arab countries that recently overthrew authoritarian leaders… The funds are from unspent money appropriated by Congress for other purposes, officials said. The money for Tunisia will be distributed through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, a program begun by the George W. Bush administration that works with local nongovernmental groups to encourage democracy in the region.”

“Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh on Tuesday threatened government opponents with civil war and appealed to them to begin a national dialogue in conflicting statements that did not stop calls for his immediate resignation,” the Washington Post reports. 

“President Obama this year has threatened to veto nearly as many bills as he did in 2009 and 2010 combined,” The Hill writes. “Obama has issued six veto threats in 2011, four of them this month. Working with a Democratic House and Senate over the last couple of years, Obama issued eight during the entire 111th Congress.”

The White House is full-court pressing today’s anniversary with administration officials in 15 events across the country and the release of a video, showing the president making a phone call to a student at Michigan State University who was able to stay on his mother’s health insurance plan. The video also includes a map highlighting voices of others in different states across the country who have benefited from the plan.

But, as the Washington Post’s Weiner writes, there is a “political stalemate” on health care. Polls haven’t budged much. In fact, they have ticked more negative over the past year. “After privately conceding that they had lost the message war during much of the process-dominated fight surrounding the health care law, White House officials predicted that health-care legislation would become more popular once it was passed, arguing that the ugly congressional battle had colored peoples’ views,” the Post writes. “The law did get a post-passage bump in polls, with slightly more people in favor than opposed. But the administration’s longer-term education effort around the bill hasn’t done much to build momentum for the law.”

Evidence of that, aside from the above-mentioned polls, also comes fresh today from CNN and Gallup. CNN’s finds a 37%-59% split of those who support the measure vs. those who oppose it. “That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure,” CNN writes.

And Gallup also finds a slightly more negative split from March 2010 to this month. By a 49%-40% margin, Americans saw the health-care law as a “good thing” in March 2010. Now, the law is a net-negative, with 46% saying it is a “good thing,” but 49% saying it is a “bad thing” with Republicans most solidly in opposition.

While decisions disputing the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law wind through the courts, individual advocacy groups are holding events to commemorate the law’s one-year birthday. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is celebrating the anniversary by focusing attention on the parts of the law that have already taken effect, like the high-risk coverage polls which have 12,500 enrollees, and the $250 rebate check that was mailed out to 4 million older Americans to help cover prescription-drug costs. “In lieu of data, administration officials are spotlighting testimonials from people who have been helped,” the Washington Post writes.

The Hill: “To combat GOP claims that reform amounts to a government takeover of healthcare, the Obama administration has been eager to tout its willingness to bend some of the rules for those who can’t match the law’s rigorous requirements. But these efforts have opened the White House to even more criticism. Republicans charge that the 1,000-plus organizations that have received a temporary exemption from the law’s new annual benefit requirements are proof the law doesn’t work, or that those exemptions are gifts to Democratic allies. That has put Democrats in the awkward position of defending bare-bones health plans they dislike in order to preserve stability in the insurance market.”

BARBOUR: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour made no secret about why he was visiting Reno and Carson City, Nevada yesterday: “‘I’m here because I’m thinking about running for president,’ he told reporters assembled at the Plaza Hotel in Carson City. ‘If I run, I will compete to win Nevada,’” the Las Vegas Sun reports.

CHRISTIE: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s star power and fundraising clout mean he’s on the top of the list of GOP endorsements for potential presidential candidates, and has already had several possible hopefuls come to the governor’s mansion to kiss the ring. Plus, those seriously considering running would also like confirmation that Christie is not going to make a run himself, the AP writes.

DANIELS: The New York Times writes that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ lawsuit against IBM, who canceled a $1.3 billion contract to modernize the state’s welfare system, might haunt him if he decides to run for president: “In blunt language, an [IBM] lawyer charges Mr. Daniels with hypocrisy for claiming to run a ‘transparent’ government but refusing to release documents or be deposed in the case.”

GINGRICH: On TODAY, Gingrich was critical of President Obama’s handling of Libya. “This isn’t serious standard,” he said of the humanitarian reasons for going into Libya. “This is a public relations standard.” He added, “The president of the United States does not report to the United Nations.” And: “By this standard, we could get engaged in all sorts of places,” including Sudan. On Khaddafy, Gingrich said, “If this is not designed to get rid of Khaddafy, then this makes no sense at all.” On whether he would have engaged in this operation, Gingrich said flatly, “I would not have intervened. There were a lot of other ways” to deal with Khaddafy. And, he said, if Khaddafy stays in power, “it will be a defeat for the United States. … This is about as badly run as any foreign operation in our lifetime.”

Newt Gingrich writes an op-ed in Human Events saying that House Republicans should tie the repeal of President Obama’s health care law to the vote that would raise the debt ceiling: “Republicans should attach the full repeal of ObamaCare to the debt ceiling increase bill and pass it immediately.. While passing it, they should make clear that they would be willing to pass a clean debt ceiling increase if the White House and Senate Democrats agree to defund the implementation of ObamaCare through 2012 as part of a package of real spending reductions.”

Gingrich will be the next guest on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press,” which will air March 25^th and 27^th, the Des Moines Register reports. Gingrich will be the second potential GOP presidential candidate to appear on the program, following Rick Santorum’s appearance last month.

Gingrich will address Georgia Republicans at the dinner for their annual convention on May 13 in Macon, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes.

GIULIANI: Speaking in Palm Beach, Rudy Giuliani backed away from his previous comments that he would consider running for president if Sarah Palin were a candidate, calling the statement “rash,” the Palm Beach Post writes. But he did say he’d think about a bid if it looks like the Republican nominee would otherwise be “too right-wing.” Giuliani also said Mitt Romney should disown the health care law he passed while governor of Massachusetts.

HUCKABEE: Mike Huckabee told the Christian news service One News Now that he would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military if he were president because “that's really what the military wants,” Politico notes.

PAWLENTY: On the one-year anniversary of the health-care overhaul being signed into law, Pawlenty is out with this statement: "One year ago today, President Obama signed into law the Federal government takeover of health care, one of the most flawed and misguided laws in modern history. Obamacare takes our health care system in the wrong direction, failing to reduce costs and improve quality. The law infringes on individual and states' rights by forcing individuals to purchase a good or service, which is why I joined a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional. If courts do not do so first, as President, I would support the immediate repeal of Obamacare and replace it with market-based health care reforms."

Doug Wead, former President George H.W. Bush’s liaison to the evangelical community, said Tim Palwenty may be well positioned to win over the evangelical Christian voting bloc, the Minneapolis Star Tribune writes.

Pawlenty will appear at a meeting of the Nashua, New Hampshire Republican City Committee on April 14, the New Hampshire Union-Leader’s DiStaso writes.

ROMNEY: Romney writes an op-ed for National Review Online, re-stating his belief that President Obama’s national health care plan is “simply not the answer” while asserting that states should be “free to experiment.” He also said that while he advocates the full repeal of the health care law, a faster way to derailing it would be to issue an executive order to provide waivers to all 50 states to opt out of the program.

Nevada Rep. Joe Heck would support Mitt Romney if Romney runs, the AP reports.

SANTORUM: Rick Santorum will participate in an economic town hall at New England College in Henniker, New Hampshire on Thursday, April 14^th, the New Hampshire Union-Leader’s DiStaso writes.

“A record seven female Senators will be on the ballot in 2012; history suggests one will not return to D.C.

While there was significant turnover in Washington during the 2010 election cycle, only one new woman was elected to the U.S. Senate (New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte) while one was defeated (Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln),” the University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics blog writes. “In that cycle, six female U.S. Senate incumbents were on the ballot, which was tied for the largest number in history with the Election of 2006. In 2012, however, that record will be broken as seven women in the nation's upper legislative chamber are running for reelection: Republican Olympia Snowe (Maine), and Democrats Dianne Feinstein (California), Debbie Stabenow (Michigan), Maria Cantwell (Washington), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York). Texas' Kay Bailey Hutchison would have made it eight, but the four-term GOPer announced she is retiring at the end of this term. And how have female senatorial incumbents fared throughout history? A Smart Politics review of U.S. Senate election data finds female incumbents have won 80 percent of the time -- winning 36 contests and losing nine.”

MASSACHUSETTS: If Mitt Romney does run for president, his record while governor of Massachusetts may hurt not only him but the former state senator with whom Romney used to work: current Sen. Scott Brown. The Boston Globe: “As Romney veers rightward nationally to win the nomination, while Brown moves to the center to win re-election in Massachusetts, conflicting views are inevitable. Each is his own man, but it's only natural for two people with similar political pedigrees to face questions about the other's policy views… Both will also have to stage an artful dance as they call for repealing Obama's universal health care program, which was modeled after a 2006 Massachusetts bill that then-state Senator Brown voted for and then-Governor Romney signed into law.”

MICHIGAN: New York Times: “Laying bare the country’s most startling example of modern urban collapse, census data on Tuesday showed that Detroit’s population had plunged by 25 percent over the last decade. It was dramatic testimony to the crumbling industrial base of the Midwest, black flight to the suburbs and the tenuous future of what was once a thriving metropolis. ”

New York Times: “A year after President Obama signed his health care law into effect, the two leading Republicans in Congress are making it clear that they do not intend to let up in their assault on the historic measure. In a joint opinion article to be published in the Cincinnati Enquirer Wednesday morning, House Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, promise to continue pursuing ‘full repeal’ of the law.”

The House GOP has looked into cutting fund food stamps for the Republicans’ 2012 budget proposal, The Hill reports.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has taken to Tweeting (@nancypelosi) various aspects of the health-care law she likes that are now in effect.

From NBC's Pete Williams and Jonathan Hutcheson
Did President Obama violate the Constitution or federal law when he ordered the U.S. military to take part in coalition attacks on forces loyal to Moammar Khaddafy in Libya?

The Constitution itself doesn't answer the question, because it gives Congress authority "to raise and support Armies," "to provide and maintain a Navy," and "to declare War." But it also provides that, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

Congress has formally declared war only five times in U.S. history -- for the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World Wars I and II. But presidents have approved dozens of military actions with no such declaration, including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam. 

Well over 100 military operations were ordered without any advance Congressional authorization at all. Recent examples include actions in Grenada, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, and intervention in civil wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.

A federal law, the War Powers Act of 1973, requires the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before deploying U.S. forces. An exception was made for emergencies created by attacks on the U.S. or its armed forces.

Some legal scholars conclude that President Obama violated the law's requirements, when he failed to seek congressional approval.

"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.

While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.

But one former official who advised President George W. Bush said that while the decision to deploy U.S. forces in the Libyan operation was a political and strategic mistake, it's entirely legal.

"Congress raises and supports the military, but the president is the commander. Declaring war and making war are two different functions. There's no question President Obama has the authority to do what he did," the official said, asking that his name not be used.

Mr. Obama's actions are consistent with the way every president since Richard Nixon has treated the War Powers Act, choosing to notify Congress only after a decision has been made to sign orders authorizing military operations.

His actions do, however, appear to contradict the view he expressed as a candidate. In December 2007, he told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a president "does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 

So who's right? Constitutional questions, and legal battles over violations of federal laws, are normally resolved by judges. But this is an area where the courts have been reluctant to tread, unwilling to referee what they see as disputes between the political branches of the government. 

From NBC’s Catherine Chomiak
Mississippi governor potential Republican presidential candidate, Haley Barbour, said today in Nevada it would take a “campaign that is about policy” to defeat President Obama in 2012.

“The 2010 campaign was the most massive repudiation of any administration’s policies in American history,” he said in a brief interview with NBC affiliate KNVR. “The American people know all that spending, wanting to raising tax, after tax, after tax, exploding deficits, gargantuan debt, a health care bill that is going to drive up the cost of health care and an energy policy that’s hurting the economy. That all of those things made it harder to have economic growth and job creation.”

Barbour is in Nevada today to meet with Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) and other Republican lawmakers. He acknowledged that Nevada is an important early primary state as well as a critical swing state in the general election. Barbour also reiterated that his final decision, whether to run or not, wouldn’t come until the end of April.

From NBC’s Ali Weinberg
President Harry Truman’s decision in 1950 to order U.S. air and naval forces into Korea has been cited as a precedent for a president initiating overseas military action without first seeking Congressional authorization.

But Congress didn’t exactly go along.

Some members did, in fact, accuse Truman of usurping the powers of the legislative branch, in very similar ways that President Obama’s decision to authorize air strikes against Libya has been met with Congressional criticism. 

Truman’s administration justified the strike by saying the United Nations Security Council had recommended all members of the U.N. to “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repeal the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Truman cited the resolution in a statement to the public explaining his decision on June 27, 1950:

In Korea the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea. The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the Thirty-eighth Parallel. This they have not done, but on the contrary have pressed the attack. The Security Council called upon all members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution.

In these circumstances I have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support.

While Congress overall seemed to support the merits of the announcement (and, in fact, according to a New York Times article from June 27, 1950, many cheered it in the House of Representatives), some members said it was an example of overreach by the executive branch.

From the same Times article:

The most outspoken objection to the Chief Executive’s course was expressed by Representative Vito Marcantonio, American Labor party, of New York, who charged that Mr. Truman had usurped the powers of Congress by declaring war against North Korea.

He said the President’s action was “a disastrous course” – one that might bring “disastrous consequences on the people of the United States unless checked by the people themselves.”

“For all purposes, he declared, “we are at war with the Northern Government of Korea and we might as well face it.”

In fact, other objections pertained to the very role of the United Nations Security Council (which had been formed just five years before in 1945) in declaring military actions, and whether it alone should serve as sufficient authorization for the U.S. to become involved in fighting.

Senator Arthur V. Watkins, Republican of Utah, asked Mr. Lucas [who read the statement in the Senate] whether the President should not have consulted with Congress before ordering the Navy and the Air Force to support the South Koreans.

“It is a serious emergency, and I am taking that into consideration,” he told Mr. Lucas. “But does the Senator consider the action taken justified by the fact that we have ratified the United Nations pact and have become a member of it; and if a request is made by the United Nations through the Security Council, to send support, whether the President would be justified by that alone, in sending support which might result in a war?”

From NBC’s Catherine Chomiak
Tim Pawlenty yesterday became the first bona fide potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. Lesser-known businessman Herman Cain and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer (R) have also already formed committees.

The former Minnesota governor’s announcement came in the form of a Facebook message. In the only media appearance he made after his announcement, Pawlenty told Fox News the decision to announce his committee on Facebook came from a desire to be on the “cutting edge” and called the social networking site “the wave of the future.” In making the announcement on Facebook, he became the first candidate in history to do so. He also said the site would be a helpful tool “to grow the conservative movement and reach out to new voters.”

But did it work? The video is certainly cutting edge. Pawlenty narrates while music swells in the background and fast-paced video flashes on the screen. The spot looks more like a movie trailer than the usual political ad. As for gaining supporters, he is only up about 5,000 “likes” on his Facebook page. Yesterday, before the announcement Tim Pawlenty had around 74,000 people who “like” him on Facebook. Today, he’s up to a little over 79,000. And consider that the only way to view the message on Facebook was to “like” the page. So that 5,000 will inevitably include members of the media, who clicked just to view the video.

Compare that with Sarah Palin’s roughly 2.8 million Facebook followers. (Not that Facebook followers equates to political strength as much as celebrity status.)

In a telephone town hall yesterday, Pawlenty didn’t seem worried. When answering from a supporter on the call about poll numbers and name recognition Pawlenty was unfazed. “If you're a serious candidate for president of the United States and get any reasonable amount of traction,” he said, “then you're name I.D. will be 100 percent by the time the process enters the serious stage.”

Plus, there are still 10 months before the scheduled Iowa and New Hampshire contests. And both are states in which retail politics is key. In other words, neither contest is contingent upon national name ID. Candidates, like Rudy Giuliani, for example, in 2007, who led national polls certainly found those polls didn’t matter.

Talking campaign strategy, Pawlenty said his goal is to unify the conservative movement. “If you think about the conservative coalition and the party more broadly,” he said, “there's overlap between these groups, but as it relates to economic conservatives, social conservatives, libertarian, tea party conservatives, national defense conservatives, I think I'm going to be unique in the field to be able to deeply and genuinely appeal across that whole spectrum.”

Looking forward, Pawlenty said on FOX to expect key staff announcements to come over the next couple days. His big announcement of an official campaign will follow shortly thereafter. The latest guidance NBC has received is sometime this spring, probably in May.

“We’re not going to draw this out for a long period of time,” Pawlenty said. “That formal announcement or fuller announcement will come relatively soon.”

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) joined fellow Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who voiced their opposition earlier this month to House Republicans' efforts to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding.

"I support family planning and health services for women," said Brown, who's up for reelection next year in liberal Massachusetts. "Given our severe budget problems, I don't believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate."

The Boston Globe notes: "House Republicans have sought to eliminate all federal grants and contracts with Planned Parenthood, some $300 million, because the agency provides abortion services. By law, none of the federal money can be used to pay for abortions, but abortion-rights opponents have argued that any financial support for Planned Parenthood frees up other money that could be used for abortions."

*** UPDATE *** The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee points out that Brown voted in favor of the GOP budget plan two weeks ago, thereby voting for the Planned Parenthood cuts that were in that budget. The DSCC writes in a press release:

"Scott Brown made headlines today by flip-flopping and now claiming that he opposes efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. But the truth is that Brown voted to defund Planned Parenthood just two weeks ago as part of his vote for the Republican budget. If he was against cutting funding for cervical cancer screenings, breast exams and disease prevention, why did he vote with Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment to strip funding for these basically health services?

“If Scott Brown felt this way, he should have shown some backbone and opposed these cuts in the first place,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Matt Canter. “Instead he did what he always does and stood in lock step with the Republican establishment in Washington DC, voting to cut funding for 800 women’s health care clinics across the country, including more than a half dozen in Massachusetts. Scott Brown is not who he says he is.  He votes with Mitch McConnell 98 percent of the time, and Massachusetts voters deserve better.”

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, Luke Russert, and Domenico Montanaro
Liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is vowing to introduce an amendment to de-fund the military action in Libya. It's not likely to pass the House. Below is the full press release.

Kucinich last night also sent out a fundraising solicitation last night on the military action and on the potential that his district is eliminated after districts are re-drawn later this year.

Here's Kucinich's release:

Amendment Would Deny Funds for the Military Offensive in Libya
Washington D.C. (March 22, 2011) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today announced that he will offer an amendment that would prohibit federal funds from being used to fund military operations in Libya. The amendment would be offered to the next funding measure Congress considers.

Kucinich sent the following letter to fellow Members of Congress:

War Is More than Boots on the Ground

Support an Amendment to End Military Involvement in Libya

Dear Colleague:

A few days ago, the United States and our allies began conducting United Nations-sanctioned, U.S.-led military operations against Libya. The establishment of a no-fly zone by the U.S. and our allies, billed as an act to protect civilians in Libya, is an act of war. Yet the President committed the U.S. to military invention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the initial costs of a no-fly zone could cost the U.S. between $400 and $800 million, or $30 to $100 million per week. We have already spent trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which descended into unwinnable quagmires. Now, the President is plunging the United States into yet another war we cannot afford. While the Administration assures us that that the U.S. will hand-off its lead role to coalition partners within days, we have not been notified of long-term plans or goals following initial air strikes in the country. The timeline the President gave to Congress was summarized with one word: "limited."

I intend to offer an amendment to the forthcoming Continuing Resolution or Omnibus Appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for U.S. involvement in military operations in Libya. I urge you to support this amendment.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

We wrote this morning that the unfolding flap over Sen. Claire McCaskill’s private plane – and the back taxes she owed on it – is a major problem for the Missouri Democrat, who would have faced a difficult 2012 re-election even absent controversy over her use of taxpayer money for political travel.

The story is particularly tough for McCaskill – a former state auditor and self-described watchdog who has styled her work on congressional oversight issues after the Truman Committee.  Her previous scrutiny of perpetrators of government waste means that the spotlight is all the hotter when it’s pointed back on her.

Enter this new wrinkle in the story (via Politico):

More than six years ago, Claire McCaskill was embroiled in another fight over the political use of airplanes -- except in that case, she was raising the issue against her opponent.

During the crescendo of her primary challenge to Gov. Bob Holden in July 2004, then-state auditor McCaskill ran an ad showing an airplane circling around the outline of Missouri, slamming the governor for "taking over 300 taxpayer funded trips on the state airplane.”

And here’s a link to an AP story at the time, in which McCaskill called Holden’s use of the plane to fly to non-political events the “kind of things that make taxpayers raise their eyebrows.”

Msnbc.com's Tom Curry takes a look today at President Barack Obama's justification for going forward with a military operation in Libya without authorization from Congress.

In the case of Libya, President Barack Obama has consulted with congressional leaders, but sought no authorization for his military operation against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

--snip --

Obama’s stance is striking: not only hasn’t he addressed the question of congressional authorization, but acting without it appears to be at odds with what he stood for when he ran for president.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007.

Obama has not argued that Gadhafi is “an actual or imminent threat” to the United States, only to the Libyans who oppose him.

Khaddafy: What’s the policy -- does he stay or does he go? … Obama again talks of handing off leadership on “no-fly zone;” hopes for Arab support … But U.S. is a war-weary nation … Congress doesn’t like feeling like its out the loop … Webb, Lugar keep up criticism -- Obama not in DC, can’t call them in … WH starts the pushback on congressional input … T-Paw gets in -- his path, his problem … Barbour gets NYT/WaPo treatment … McCaskill’s major plane problem … And if it’s Tuesday…

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg, and Carrie Dann
*** The Khaddafy question: The news that broke this morning: An American F-15 fighter jet crashed in Libya, NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski reports. The U.S. says there was no evidence of hostile fire; the pilots detected mechanical problems they couldn’t fix and both ejected and are safe and suffered only minor injuries. The aircraft was on a mission to strike Libyan air defense systems, and the aircraft originated from "a base" in Europe, a U.S. spokesperson said. Yesterday in Chile, President Obama reiterated that the coalition forces’ objective was NOT to take out Khaddafy, but instead to protect the Libyan people and that the United States was standing up for their “legitimate aspirations” – something that “must be met.” Asked to defend his prior statements that Khaddafy must step down and how he squares that with saying the mission was not necessarily to remove Khaddafy from power, Obama said it was “easy to square” the military action with his stated policies and reiterated that Khaddafy needs to go.

*** ‘Isolation’ vs. ouster: He said the U.S. has at its disposal a “wide range” of initiatives to put Khaddafy in “isolation,” like freezing his assets, for example. He again tried to explain the distinction between U.S. policy, arguing for Khaddafy's ouster with the limited humanitarian justification of the military strikes. There are lots of reasons to cling to this distinction: (1) some key Arab allies couldn't support the mission if making Khaddafy a target was part of the plan; (2) don't forget the U.S. policy against assassination; (3) it's un-Bush, and when it comes to foreign policy postures, this administration never wants to be seen as doing something Bush-ian. The Bush team had a similar mindset in their first term when it came to comparisons to Clinton. Still the ambiguity lingers when on NBC’s TODAY Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stressed that U.S. policy IS to get Khaddafy out. By the way, speaking of Bush, Tom Ricks this morning on NPR laid out what he sees as the real difference between Obama’s foreign policy and Bush’s -- what he calls Obama’s "realistic ambiguity" vs. Bush's "false clarity.” He said military leaders do not express confidence in Obama’s leadership, but view him with "puzzlement.” Then again, they initially liked Bush's "false clarity," Ricks said, but by the end of the Iraq war, they were "swearing off the moonshine at that point."

*** On transitions and Arab countries: Obama also stressed yesterday that the U.S. will “transition” to others leading the way on enforcement of a “no-fly zone” and said he’s confident that Arab countries will be involved -- though there’s no sign of that happening as yet. Just one Arab country has signed on for now -- Qatar. And while the administration still hasn't provided details of the command structure that will oversee the “no-fly zone,” it is still confident they'll hand this off in "days not weeks." By the way, it’s been four days since the phrase “days not weeks” has been attributed to the White House. As for public opinion, not a lot of data out there. A CNN poll out yesterday, conducted over the weekend, showed American support for a no-fly zone has increased to 70%-27% up from 56%-40% last week. The president’s approval rating held steady at 51%-47%.

*** Congressional unhappiness: It's very hard to find a member of Congress completely supportive of the Obama administration’s handling of Libya. And judging by the slowness of the administration to pushback against the Congressional critics, it's safe to say, they underestimated this issue. For one thing, things moved faster last week than even they anticipated. The U.N. resolution push was seen, at first, as potentially a week-long project, but Amb. Susan Rice got it done in about 36 hours, and so the "consulting with Congress" stage became simply an "informing the Congress" program. But there are two other factors to consider:

*** A war-weary nation: (1) Congress, like many in the country and military has war fatigue. The Afghanistan war is unpopular, so the whole aspect of another war, another military operation is a tough sell. And it appears the administration underestimated the fact members of Congress, even the reliable foreign policy activists, were going to channel the public's war fatigue.

*** The trip problem: (2) Congress does not like being out of the loop -- and out of the decision-making -- and has a knee-jerk reaction against executive power. That’s particularly true for those that want to have a say in foreign-policy matters, like Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN). Both were on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports yesterday continuing to be critical of the president’s handling of Libya. “This isn’t the way our system is supposed to work,” said Webb, who is not seeking reelection in 2012. He also criticized what he sees as the lack of clarity on the mission. Lugar was blunter: “I’ve said from the beginning that the plan is not simply there. The objectives, the end game is not apparent.” This is part of the problem with Obama conducting a war from overseas. He can’t mind his domestic flank. If he were in Washington, he’d be able to get some of the foreign policy realists into the Oval Office and personally make his case. Perhaps more phone calls could help, but the president appears to be using any time he has for calls to calm down allies who are also growing increasingly unhappy and growing increasingly more comfortable saying so.

*** The pushback: Administration officials began to push back yesterday in Chile on the notion that the White House did not consult with Congress. Exhibit A for them: a Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it. The resolution was adopted unanimously and urged, in part, “…the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” BUT this is a “non-binding” resolution and does not amount to or have the legal standing of a declaration of war. The administration also made a few other weaker arguments claiming consultation, including a meeting Friday at the White House that smacked a lot more of "informing" Congress rather than "consulting."

*** T-Paw gets in: Yesterday, Tim Pawlenty became the first top-tier candidate to announce an exploratory committee in the 2012 election (Newt Gingrich announced a Web site and filed paperwork with the IRS but did not file with the FEC). Pawlenty did so on Facebook -- with a movie-trailer-like video. He’s the first candidate in history to announce on Facebook. Forming a committee allows Pawlenty to begin raising money, hiring staff, and renting office space. And it takes him a step closer to officially announcing his intention to run for president, which is expected later this spring, probably in May. In the next week, expect he will announce new staff hirings in Iowa and New Hampshire and name the leadership of the exploratory committee. Just asking… but didn't Pawlenty take away the effectiveness of the Facebook announcement by announcing BEFORE he did it that he was going to have a "special Facebook posting”? Why not simply do it, and allow the viral to happen? Isn't that the way to build Facebook trust?

*** Pawlenty’s path: Pawlenty will be one of the candidates vying to be the “Anti-Romney.” And the Anti-Romney needs to win Iowa -- though Pawlenty will also make a real push to win New Hampshire -- and yes, appear in some more hockey garb in the hockey-loving state. As we noted last week, Iowa seems to be the incredibly shrinking field, with Pawlenty and Barbour (and maybe Gingrich) as the only top-tier candidates who, at this point, look like they’re going to play strongly. A win there will give the “Anti-Romney” the necessary momentum to make a real go at it. As an ex-governor of a neighboring state, Pawlenty should be able to do well. As the Thunes and Daniels’s of the world fade out of this race, one could argue Pawlenty is now in the pole position to be the “Anti-Romney.” He's in a very good pre-announcement phase.

*** His potential speed bumps: Pawlenty has a consistent conservative record on lots of issues -- except one. Each of the candidates has their potential Achilles’ Heels -- Romney (health care and authenticity), Barbour (demographics), Gingrich (personal life), Huckabee (fundraising/organization), Palin (lack of discipline/self-reflection/intellectual curiosity). For Pawlenty, it’s climate change. This is someone who cut a radio ad with then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano urging Congress to “Cap greenhouse gas pollution, now!” He once touted his support of 2007 renewable energy legislation, “which established strict statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015 and 80 percent below those levels by 2050,” as FactCheck.org points out. “Minnesota has been setting the pace for the country in terms of advancements in renewable and clean energy development,” Pawlenty said once. He now says it was a mistake.

*** And it’s on tape: A Democratic Minnesota state senator was happy to cut a video earlier this month and issue a press release laying out just how pro-change and cap-and-trade Pawlenty was. Pawlenty’s answer before conservative bloggers at CPAC, per a video posted on Hot Air: “Have I had a few clunkers along the way? Yes, but everybody who’s running who’s been in office has got a few clunkers. I think mine are fewer and less severe than most.” He added, “It’s one thing to be conservative when you have a full conservative state, a full conservative legislature, come on up to Minnesota and try it.” And: “Have I changed my position on it? Yes. But I’m not going to be cute about it … Yeah it was a mistake. It was stupid. I was wrong. I changed my position.” Will that be enough? By the way, Gingrich has a similar issue on climate change, see his TV PSA with Nancy Pelosi.

*** Dee plane! Dee plane! Part 2: Yet again, NOT a good headline for Claire McCaskill: “Claire McCaskill admits to $287,000 in unpaid taxes on private plane,” the Washington Post writes. “I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon, per the Post. “I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again.” This is just the latest in a string of problems for McCaskill involving her private plane. This is a MAJOR problem for her -- not just in how she used the plane, but that she owned one in the first place. The plane issue and her vocal support of President Obama during his 2008 will be her biggest vulnerabilities in trying for reelection in 2012 in a state that has trended away from Democrats. (Missouri is ranked No. 4 on First Read’s Top 10 Takeovers.) By the way, the NRSC has made a concerted effort to turn this plane flap into a major issue. That's how campaign committees can be effective early in the cycle.

*** DCCC targets Republicans on entitlements: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will announce this morning it’s targeting 10 Republicans for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) forthcoming budget that will likely propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits. The targets: Paul Gosar (AZ-1), Bill Young (FL-10), Allen West (FL-22), Dan Benishek (MI-1), Joe Heck (NV-3), Lou Barletta (PA-11), Blake Farenthold (TX-27), Ryan (WI-1), Sean Duffy (WI-7), and David McKinley (WV-1). The DCCC, which launched a Web site called, “StopBenefitCuts.com,” will run newspaper ads, robo-calls, make live calls, and send out e-mails -- all to begin tomorrow. File this under: “Reason No. 650 Why Ultimately Nobody Sitting In A Real Swing District Will Seriously Touch Entitlements."

*** On the trail: Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) is in Carson City, NV, where he holds a press conference (4:30 pm ET) with Republican leaders, including Republican darling, Gov. Brian Sandoval. … Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) is in Palm Beach, FL … Pawlenty participates in a public lecture (8:00 pm ET) with Christina Romer, the former chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN.

*** If it’s Tuesday: The next mayor of Tampa, the host city of the 2012 Republican National Convention, will be chosen today in a runoff election between former City Council member and public affairs executive Bob Buckhorn and pharmacist-turned-county commissioner Rose Ferlita, who edged out three other candidates during the March 1 election to replace outgoing two-term mayor Pam Iorio. While the election is nonpartisan by law, both major parties have endorsed the candidate who is a member of their party -- Buckhorn by the Democrats and Ferlita by the Republicans. Ferlita was ahead of Buckhorn by 10 points in a March 8 Tampa Chamber of Commerce poll, but the race may have tightened since then, as Iorio endorsed Buckhorn two days later, after initially saying she’d stay out of the race.

Countdown to continuing resolution’s expiration: 17 days
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 143 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 231 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 321 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

Did the president, a onetime constitutional law scholar, have the constitutional authority to do what his administration did in Libya? The New York Times looks at the history of the debate over congressional authorization and executive power in initiating military action. And it observes: "The administration’s legal team appears to be distinguishing between a full war and a more limited military operation, on the theory that the Libyan intervention falls short of what would prompt any Congressional authority to control decisions about whether to initiate hostilities."

Foreign Policy’s Peter Feaver has a good question: “Where is Biden?” “[T]here is a very curious missing figure in that picture: Vice President Biden,” Feaver writes. “I may have missed it, but I don't think he figures in any of the accounts and, come to think of it, he does not feature prominently in the reporting on the issue for the past several weeks. This is very curious because, of course, the whole reason President Obama picked Biden as VP was for precisely these sorts of moments when the entire foreign-policy establishment is strained to the breaking point by the accelerated crush of world events. But Biden seems to have been a non-player in all of this.”

Bloomberg News: “Barack Obama raised $59 million for his presidential campaign during the first half of 2007. To match that, prospective Republican challengers to his re- election would need to take in roughly $590,000 a day until June 30 if they entered the race today.

If there’s one characteristic that links all potential Republican presidential candidates, it’s that they all have at least one flaw that, if not handled with care, could derail the candidate, the AP writes.

Major GOP fundraisers are thus far holding out on their donations, USA Today writes, noting that only about 60 of the more than 530 party leaders who bundled money for John McCain’s ’08 general election bid have donated to the federal campaign accounts of the 2012 potential presidential candidates.

BARBOUR: Haley Barbour gets profile treatments from both the Washington Post and the New York Times, which look at the governor's attempts to overhaul his former image as a Southern lobbyist with a few too many pounds on his frame. "Americans want a president who can get things done and solve the problems that are making their lives less good than they could be,” he told the Post. “I’m a lawyer, a politician and a lobbyist. That’s a trifecta. But I think the voters are interested in other things.”

And the Times' headline: "A Proud ‘Lobbyist’ and ‘Southerner’ Weighs ‘President.’" In an interview for the piece, Barbour revisits his controversial comment that it was not "all that bad" when he was growing up during the civil rights era, explaining it thusly: "'If someone had asked me about the racial situation in the segregated South when I was growing up,' Mr. Barbour said, 'I would have said that while people at the time didn’t know -- this was all they knew -- they realized ultimately that it was indefensible.'" And in WaPo, asked about the race question, Barbour "bristled" and responded: "The only people who ever asked me about it are reporters."

Also, check out this point about the difference between Barbour and other GOP candidates in how they discuss the current president. Writes The Times' Zeleny: "The indictment that Mr. Barbour lays out against the president is different from the early approach of many likely rivals. He does not suggest that Mr. Obama favors a European socialist governing style (as Newt Gingrich argues). He rarely makes jokes at Mr. Obama’s expense (as Tim Pawlenty does). He does not say Mr. Obama was caught flat-footed by protests sweeping through the Middle East (as Mitt Romney asserts)."

It’s a credit to Barbour’s team that they were able, by the way, to get big profiles of him in the Times and Post -- the day after Pawlenty’s exploratory announcement. Barbour, on the other hand, hasn’t declared yet. Just three Republican have (in order) -- Herman Cain, Buddy Roemer, and Pawlenty.

DANIELS: The Indiana governor has a book deal, but says it has nothing to do with a potential presidential run.

GINGRICH: Newt Gingrich now has the support of both the current governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, and his immediate predecessor, as former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said he would Gingrich if he ran for president.

The Hill points out that Gingrich congratulated Tim Pawlenty over Twitter on his formation of an exploratory committee to run for president: “@timpawlenty Congrats. You were a MN Gov, You'd be a great Pres candidate. @CallyGingrich and I look forward to seeing you and Mary soon,” Gingrich tweeted. (Notice, he got in yet another Callista mention…)

Gingrich has arranged for two more visits to New Hampshire coming up: March 30^th, for media interviews and private meetings with key Republicans, as well as a speaking engagement at Salem State College. Then on April 4^th, Gingrich will be back with an appearance at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

HUNTSMAN: “Diplomacy, vision and long-term planning tend to be the hallmarks of Huntsman's leadership style, according to a handful of Utah activists interviewed by RCP for this story. And it underscores why Obama effectively deported him to China,” Real Clear Politics writes. “The 50-year-old Huntsman has a sparkling résumé, and his record as a former governor of Utah is rife with credentials that would make other fiscally conservative governors with national ambitions salivate. In fact, his four-and-a-half years in charge of the Beehive State were seen by some as so successful that, along with two Democratic governors, Tim Kaine's Virginia and Christine Gregoire's Washington state - the Pew Center on the States listed Huntsman's Utah as one of the nation's three best-managed states in its 2008 Government Performance Project report. This doesn't necessarily endear him to conservatives.”

PALIN: Sarah Palin kept a low profile on her trip to Israel, the AP writes, “changing her schedule at the last minute and leaving sites before reporters could catch up with her.”

Conservative writer David Frum says that Palin made a mistake for a potential presidential candidate -- booking her trip to Israel through a Christian tour operator, rather than the Republican Jewish Coalition, which took George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour to Israel, as well as many other presidential hopefuls. “The RJC's board of directors includes four people who have served as national finance chairs for the Republican Party -- the party's "fundraiser-in-chief." Eight board members have run major donor groups within the GOP and 18 members served as state finance chairs for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. It also includes some less distinguished figures -- me, for example,” Frum writes.

PAWLENTY: “Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota became the first major Republican to enter the 2012 presidential race, announcing an exploratory committee on Monday that formalizes an ambition that has been steadily building for more than a year,” the New York Times writes. “In a two-minute message that was set to music, Mr. Pawlenty did not specify how he would address entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, but he introduced himself as a candidate with working-class roots who would focus on lifting the economy, creating jobs and limiting government intervention in business.”

The Des Moines Register’s take: “Referencing his working-class upbringing in a blue-collar Twin Cities neighborhood, Pawlenty said he identified with everyday Americans struggling through a slow-moving economic recovery.”

Can Tim Pawlenty win? Money and visibility will be some of his steepest obstacles. The New York Times lay out what it sees as his five challenges.

The Washington Post writes of Pawlenty's pluses: "[T]he former governor carries less obvious baggage than some of his better-known opponents. Aides said Monday that he will seek to portray himself as a bridge between the fiscal and social conservatives within the party. And, aides said, Pawlenty has shown that his ability to appeal to independents would make him the strongest potential candidate against President Obama in the general election."

“Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty kicked off the ‘exploration’ phase of his 2012 presidential run Monday evening with a tele-town hall, where the governor cast himself as Republican Party uniter,” the Minneapolis Star Tribune writes. “‘I think I’m going to be unique in the field to be able to deeply and genuinely appeal across that whole spectrum,’ Pawlenty said of the different conservative factions. ‘It’s fair to say that many of them [other candidates], and maybe all of them, really will primarily appeal to just one of those categories, maybe one-and-a-half of them, but I don’t think they’re going to be able to cover the full spectrum like I can.’”

“Few minorities are featured in Tim Pawlenty's presidential announcement video, and, as it turns out, most of them were taken from Getty stock footage,” the Atlantic’s Good writes.

Here was Pawlenty on FOX last night, the only media he did following his announcement.

FLORIDA: Rep. Allen West has a new Democratic opponent for 2012.

MASSACHUSETTS: “Massachusetts Republicans are branding Newton Mayor Setti Warren as ‘not ready for primetime’ after the potential US Senate candidate incorrectly labeled a potential colleague as dead,” the Boston Globe’s Johnson reports. “During a weekend broadcast of WCVB-TV's ‘On the Record,’ Warren was asked to name the San Francisco mayor assassinated in 1978 along with city supervisor Harvey Milk. ‘Dianne Feinstein,’ Warren said after a brief pause, providing the name of the future mayor.” Warren later backtracked and corrected himself.

MISSOURI: The story about Sen. Claire McCaskill's back taxes on a private plane keeps looks more and more like a bruise. She announced yesterday that she'll sell the aircraft. Politico: McCaskill has now shelled out more than $375,000 in payments to cover the cost of the plane flights and back taxes, a series of events the senator herself has called 'embarrassing.'"

SOUTH CAROLINA: Long the primary staging ground for GOP establishment candidates, South Carolina has become a hotbed for anti-establishment forces, the Washington Post writes. Case in point: few high-profile prospective candidates have visited the state, but South Carolinians are getting to know some of the lesser-known and longer-shot candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.