Stu Rothenberg urges a pause (at least until the first of the year) in the already breathless political coverage of the next election cycles. “Because a pause would offer a little time to reflect on what happened Nov. 6 and what it might mean,” he writes. “It would give each of us individually some time to rethink our political assumptions and to re-evaluate our coverage.”

More: “Politics is fun, interesting and important, but at the end of the day, it is merely a way of picking the folks who have to make difficult decisions about public policy — including the fiscal cliff, tax reform, entitlements, the Middle East and immigration reform. … the last thing we need is longer elections and a detailed dissection about an election cycle that really won’t start to take shape until well into January, at the earliest.”

(Realize that the new members of Congress who just won haven’t even been sworn in yet. Although, you can’t completely ignore electoral politics at play – just look at how many Republicans up in 2014 voted against the UN disabilities treaty.)

Despite raising more money than any Senate candidate in the country -- $42 million – Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is in debt.

Marco Rubio tried to clear up his views on the age of the earth, science, religion: " ‘Science says it's about four and a half billion years old and my faith teaches that that's not inconsistent,’ Rubio said at a breakfast sponsored by Politico,” USA Today writes. He added, “The theological debate is how do you reconcile what science has definitely established with what you think your faith teaches. For me, actually, when it comes to the age of the Earth there is no conflict: I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth and I think scientific advances give us insight into when he did it and how he did it."

NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer’s heading to FP1 Strategies.

NEW YORK -- Less than a month after Mitt Romney's bid for the White House was suddenly snuffed out, his vice-presidential nominee and another top surrogate -- and fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate --delivered dueling speeches Tuesday that attempted to reframe Republican philosophy in what was a strikingly "Un-Romney" tone.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke first at the dinner, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was receiving an award from the foundation of Ryan's mentor, former Rep. Jack Kemp. Ryan's speech -- his first public address since the Nov. 6th loss -- echoed themes from his late October speech in Ohio on economic mobility, but little else from the fall campaign.

"We have a compassionate vision based on ideas that work - but sometimes we don't do a good job of laying out that vision. We need to do better," Ryan said Tuesday night at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, an almost word-for-word recitation of what he said Oct. 24th in Cleveland.

It was in that policy speech just two weeks before Election Day that a glimpse of what the post-election Wisconsin congressman would look like. The Ohio speech was Ryan's brainchild on the trail, reflecting his personal passion for the topic, and the idea of an upwardly mobile society that could be built on Republican principles.

The speech was the only one of its kind Ryan gave during the 80-plus days he was on Romney's ticket, and perhaps reflecting concerns that Ryan's remarks were off the nominee's messaging, Romney held his own event during Ryan's speech that day, which soaked up news coverage.

But speaking at the Kemp dinner Tuesday evening, the seven-term congressman launched himself back onto the national stage without Romney or his advisers guiding the message.

While Ryan praised Romney by name as someone who he felt "would have been a great president," he also very publically distanced himself from his former ticket mate’s "47 percent" remarks to donors at a private fundraiser last spring.

In the remarks, captured by surreptitious video recording, Romney claimed 47 percent of Americans are "dependent upon government" and would therefor only vote for President Barack Obama and his vision of a larger government.

"Both parties tend to divide Americans into 'our voters' and 'their voters,'” Ryan said. “But Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American. I believe we can turn the engines of upward mobility back on, so that no one is left out from the promise of America. But it's going to require a bold departure from the approach that government has taken for the last five decades."

If Ryan was cautiously backing away from the GOP ticket's rhetoric in his remarks, Rubio turned on his heel and walked away from it completely. In his 4,185 words of prepared remarks, two words were notably missing: Mitt and Romney.

The Florida senator and Tea Party darling focused his remarks on a segment of the population whose imagination the Romney campaign tried, and largely failed, to capture: the middle class.

Praising the large and stable middle class as something uniquely American, Rubio took aim at what he called a growing "opportunity gap" between those born into the middle class and those who are left to struggle from humbler means to try and get there.

"For those of us blessed with the opportunity to serve our country in government, one of the fundamental challenges before us is to find an appropriate and sustainable role for government in closing this gap between the dreams of millions of Americans and the opportunities for them to actually realize them," Rubio said, according to prepared remarks.

"The key to a vibrant middle class is an abundance of jobs that pay enough so that workers can provide for themselves and their families, enjoy leisure time, save for retirement, and pay for their children’s education, so they can grow up and earn even more than their parents."

Compare that to Romney's own comments on what he called the "opportunity society" he hoped to create, which focused more on the idea of government getting out of the way of business, which could lift up the American people.

"I will spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our opportunity society, led by free people and their free enterprises," Romney said in a speech in Wisconsin March 30th. "The only real solution to help communities devastated by lost jobs is more jobs. President Obama never seems to have understood the basic point that a plant closes when the business starts to lose money. So when the president attacks businesses for making money, and when his policies make it more difficult for businesses to make money, he's also attacking the very communities he wanted to help."

Romney's rhetoric toward the middle class focused, as did much of his campaign, on creating jobs. His five-point plan for creating jobs and helping the middle class touched on macro issues like controlling debt, supporting free trade and the amorphous phrase "champion small business."

That type of tone, appealing to the “job creators” more than those looking for work could have led to the polling data First Read noted this morning: Obama beat Romney by 10 points (53%-43%) on which candidate was more in touch with people like you, and, 53% said Romney's policies would favor the rich (compared to just 10% for Obama).

And while Rubio's policy prescriptions rarely deviated from Republican orthodoxy (he noted he opposed tax increases, and praised faith-based and community organizations as key to stemming "societal breakdown,") he used even his personal story -- and son-of-immigrants background -- to create a contrast with the former Republican standard bearer and paint the Republican Party as not just the party of the wealthy.

Whereas Romney infamously noted his well-to-do friends (NASCAR and NFL team owners have dubious mentions in the campaign record) and regularly highlighted successful entrepreneurs he had met on the campaign trail, Rubio closed with an anecdote of someone further down the income ladder.

"A few weeks ago, I was giving a speech at a fancy hotel in New York City,” he said. “When I arrived in the banquet hall, I was approached by a group of three uniformed employees from the hotels catering department. They had seen my speech at the Republican Convention, where I told the story of my father the ‘Banquet Bartender.’ And they had a gift for me. They presented me with this name tag, which says, ‘Rubio, Banquet Bartender.’ That moment reminded me that there are millions of Mario Rubios all across America today. They aren’t looking for a handout; they just want a job that provides for their families."

With both men striking similar notes it seems clear that at least these top Republican leaders see an inclusive message as a possible path back from the wilderness. Whether either of Tuesday's speakers will become the messenger, remains to be seen. 

Garrett Haake and Alex Moe were both 2012 presidential campaign embeds for NBC News. Haake covered Mitt Romney and Moe covered Paul Ryan and others.

WASHINGTON -- Pick your metaphor: coal-stuffed stocking, Mr. Grinch, nice-and-naughty list. Lawmakers are once again threatening to stay in session as long as it takes during the holiday season.

In a message to House members today, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., warned members that they would not be going home for the year until the fiscal cliff has been addressed.

Paul J. Richards / AFP - Getty Images

Capitol Hill workmen roll up the carpet used by VIP's after the Capitol Christmas Tree lighting ceremony on December 4, 2012 on the West Front Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington.

"Members are further reminded that the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been found," Cantor said.

The warning comes as the House leaves town today after the Republican leadership canceled Thursday's session, leaving only three currently-scheduled days left on the 2012 legislative calendar to avert the fiscal cliff. GOP leaders themselves will remain camped out in D.C. in case there is new movement on the negotiations, and rank-and-file members have been instructed to expect more added legislative days later in month.

With the fiscal cliff earning everything from doomsday predictions to despairing acceptance from commentators, it's no surprise that Hill leaders are invoking the ghosts of Christmastime sessions past to urge movement in the negotiations. Senate veterans have the memory fresh in their minds after an unusual 2009 Christmas Eve Senate vote on the Obama-backed health care bill.

According to the Senate Historical Office, holiday season sessions were not unusual before widespread train and air transportation made it easy for members to travel to their home states a few weeks after coming to Washington on the first Monday in December. But, while numerous congresses have come as close as the 23rd, leaders' frequent foreshadowing of Yuletides in the halls of Congress have generally only served to motivate their members to finish their business soon enough to get home before the sun goes down on Festivus night.

While lame-duck sessions historically don't hold many votes, and are not in D.C. for many days, the optics of today's departure won't burnish the image of a Congress with historically low approval ratings facing some of the toughest economic decisions in history. Since returning to DC after the November elections, the House has had only 16 roll call votes, and has been in session for 11 days.

In the last lame duck session in 2010, Congress was around for 19 days, taking 99 votes. 

President Barack Obama on Wednesday suggested that some Republicans had begun to soften their opposition to increased tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, but sharply warned the GOP against looking to tie their budget fight to an upcoming debate over whether to increase the debt ceiling.

Speaking in Washington before a group of corporate leaders, the president suggested some rank-and-file GOP lawmakers might relent in opposing increased income tax rates for the wealthiest earners, meaning Washington is closer to an agreement on the fiscal cliff than principal negotiators' public comments might suggest.

“I think there's a recognition that maybe they can accept some rate increases as long as it's combined with serious entitlement reform and additional spending cuts. And if we can get the leadership on the Republican side to take that framework, to acknowledge that reality, then the numbers actually aren't that far apart,” Obama told members of the Business Roundtable this morning. “Another way of putting this is, we can probably solve this in about a week. It's not that tough. But we need that conceptual breakthrough that says we need to do a balanced plan; that's what's best for the economy; that's what the American people voted for; that's how we're going to get it done.”

Related - First Thoughts: Know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em

Talks toward resolving the fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1, seem to have hit an impasse after House Republicans and Obama each offered countervailing proposals to address the looming combination.

The stalemate involves the question of whether tax rates are allowed to increase for the top earners. Republicans say they are willing to ask the wealthy to shoulder a larger share of the tax burden, but only through ending deductions and loopholes in the tax code.

"Now the revenues that we are putting on the table are going to come from, guess who? The rich," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill. "There are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy."

Obama, in his appearance shortly following Boehner's press conference, argued that closing those deductions would not raise the type of revenue needed to establish the "balanced" approach on which he campaigned. The president also said that the GOP plan would harm philanthropic and charitable giving.

As the opposing sides race toward the end-of-December deadline, a New York Times report on Wednesday suggested that Republicans might turn, as a fallback position, to authorizing an extension of current tax rates for all but the wealthiest Americans (this was essentially the president's initial request of lawmakers following the election).

But the report also suggested that Republicans might then use an impending need to authorize more borrowing authority, a point at which the GOP might have more leverage, to extract the kinds of spending cuts and tax and entitlement reforms for which Republican leaders have pushed during this fall's fiscal cliff talks.

Recommended: Boehner's fiscal cliff offer under friendly fire from right

Referencing that report, the president sternly warned Republicans against tying another increase in the debt ceiling to a fiscal fight -- a scenario which would risk reigniting the debt talks during the summer of 2011, during which the government was brought to the brink of default due to partisan differences.

"I have to just tell you, that is a bad strategy for America, it's a bad strategy for our businesses, and it's not a game that I will play," Obama said.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are currently set to depart for their holiday recess, though Boehner said that he would remain in Washington, ready "at any moment" to sit down with Obama and negotiate.

Charles Dharapak / AP

President Barack Obama pauses as he speaks about the fiscal cliff at the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers, in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012.

But Republicans also clamored for another meeting with the president, expressing their frustration that they had not received any plan in response to theirs from Obama.

"We ask the president, sit down with us, be serious about the specifics and spending so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Vice President Joe Biden tries food samples during a visit to a Costco store on a shopping trip in Washington, D.C., on November 29, 2012.

Joe Biden: Delawarean. Vice president. Vocabulary muse.

In new data announced Wednesday by Merriam-Webster, a much-quoted Bidenism from the 2012 campaign set a record for the year in online lookups during a single 24-hour period.

In the 24 hours after the Danville, Ky., vice presidential debate, after Biden famously labeled a claim by Paul Ryan "a bunch of malarkey," look-ups of the noun's definitions on the dictionary's website spiked by 3,000 percent.

According to the Associated Press, Merriam-Webster does not release data for individual words, but the site gets about 1.2 billion hits annually.

"Malarkey," a pseudo-expletive of Irish origin frequently used by the Scranton native, is defined by the dictionary company as "insincere or foolish talk : bunkum."

Merriam-Webster also announced Wednesday, per AP, that "socialism" and "capitalism" were their most looked-up words of the year, after a hard-fought election that largely centered around the role of government in the economy and Americans' lives.

For the record, both are defined thusly:

Capitalism: (noun) an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Socialism: (noun)

1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2. a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

More GOPers coming to the conclusion that they should fold their fiscal cliff hand to live another day… What a Tuesday in the battle for the heart and soul of GOP (rejection of UN treaty, Bush speech on immigration, speeches by 2016ers)… 2016 and going in the opposite direction: Rubio focuses on middle class, Ryan implicitly criticizes “47%”… DSCC gets their guy (Michael Bennet) and keeps the other Guy (Cecil, that is)… And meet Krysten Sinema.

*** Know when to hold’em, know when to fold’em: More Republicans and conservatives are coming to the conclusion that they have a bad hand to play in the fiscal battle with Democrats and the Obama White House (see John Podhoretz in today’s New York Post and the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll). And what does a smart poker player usually do when holding a bad hand? You fold to live another day. It’s what Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) pushed for last week, which got universally poo-poo’d by the GOP leadership. Now?  The New York Times reports that GOP members and leaders are considering extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class -- but resuming the larger fight over the budget and spending when it’s time to raise the debt ceiling. “There’s always better ground, but you have to get there,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) told the Times. The good news here: If you don’t want to go off the cliff, then it’s clear Republicans won’t dig in; they are talking about a way out. The bad news: Such a move only postpones the real fight. If Republicans do pursue this path, they’ll have a stronger hand to play politically than they currently do now (because the middle-class tax cuts would be off the table). But the White House would also still have some cards to play (over the eventual tax rates in any kind of tax reform, the estate tax, and a willingness to budge on entitlements). Remember, the debt ceiling standoff in July 2011 was bad of the president, but it was worse for the GOP’s brand.

*** Playing to the base, Part 2: We wrote yesterday that the initial fiscal-cliff offers from the White House (last week) and House Republicans (on Monday) seemed more like efforts geared at the bases than at real negotiating. But there was one big difference between the two offers: Democrats and liberals mostly cheered the White House’s proposal, while some Republicans and conservatives criticized the House GOP one. Example: "Speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more, while not reducing our $16 trillion debt by a single penny," Republican Sen. Jim DeMint said in a statement, per NBC’s Mike O’Brien. In Reason, Peter Suderman had a good take on the two offers. “Both opening bids are best understood as positioning statements rather than actual stabs at putting together a viable deal. They tell you as much about how the parties want to be perceived than they do about what might actually make up the substance of an eventual agreement: Obama wants to be seen as strong. Republicans want to be seen as reasonable.”

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks during the lighting ceremony of the 2012 Capitol Christmas Tree Dec. 4, 2012 at the West Front Lawn of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.

*** What a Tuesday in the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP: Yesterday was a pretty amazing day in the fight for control of shaping the Republican Party going forward. So you had the pragmatists (as mentioned above) urging GOP lawmakers to fold on extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000. You had Senate Republicans rejecting a U.N. treaty banning discrimination against those with disabilities because of concerns that it would impact America’s sovereignty. (Essentially, a bunch of Senate Republicans were running scared of the Tea Party/Ron Paul crowd. Just one GOP senator up in 2014, Susan Collins from Maine, voted for the treaty, but every other 2014 GOP senator voted no. And one of them, Thad Cochran, voted yes at first and then when he saw it was going down, switched.) But you also had George W. Bush urging Washington to soften its rhetoric on immigration. And then you had addresses by potential 2016ers Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, who tried to distance themselves from the image and message of Romney’s failed presidential campaign (more on that below).

*** 2016 and going in the opposite direction: After losing a presidential election, it’s only natural for a political party to begin looking in the opposite direction. So in the wake of longtime Sen. Bob Dole’s defeat in 1996, Republicans eventually turned to a relatively young governor with new ideas for the GOP (George W. Bush). After John Kerry lost in 2004, Democrats later nominated an exciting and history-making figure (Barack Obama). And on the heels of Sen. John McCain’s defeat after the economic collapse of 2008, Republicans this year turned to a former governor with management experience and a business background (Mitt Romney). This is the context to understand last night’s speeches at the Jack Kemp Foundation dinner by potential 2016ers Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, both of whom tried to distance themselves from the image of Romney’s campaign -- even though Ryan served as Romney’s running mate.

*** Rubio and the middle class: For his part, Rubio focused much of speech on re-building the middle class. “The existence of a large and vibrant American middle class goes to the very essence of America’s exceptional identity. Every country has rich people. But only a few places have achieved a vibrant and stable middle class. And in the history of the world, none has been more vibrant and more stable than the American middle class,” he said last night. “Government has a role to play. And we must make sure it does its part. But it’s a supporting role… It is not the ever expanding reach of government, but rather having access to the benefits of thriving economy that allows the poor to rise into the middle class. Not by making rich people poorer, but by making poor people richer.” Why is this messaging significant? According to the exit polls from last month’s election, Obama beat Romney by 10 points (53%-43%) on which candidate was more in touch with people like you. In addition, 53% said Romney’s policies would favor the rich (versus just 10% who said the same about Obama).

*** Ryan and his implicit critique of 47 percent: Meanwhile, in his first public speech since losing the presidential contest, Paul Ryan praised Romney, per NBC’s Alex Moe. “And though I wish this election had turned out differently, I’m proud of the campaign Mitt Romney and I ran. He would have been a great president, and it would have been an honor to serve this country at his side.” But Ryan also appeared to distance himself from Romney’s infamous “47%” comment, as well as the GOP presidential nominee’s analysis that he lost the election because Obama showered “gifts” on African Americans and Latinos. “Both parties tend to divide Americans into ‘our voters’ and ‘their voters,’” he said. “But Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American.” And Ryan also said this in his speech: “Losing is part of politics, and can often prepare the way for the greatest victories.”

*** DSCC gets their guy (Bennet) and also keeps their other Guy (Cecil, that is): Also yesterday, Democrats announced that Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) will chair the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee next cycle – as the party tries to hold onto its majority. And current DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil, who headed Bennet’s successful 2010 campaign, will stay in his post.

*** Meet Krysten Sinema: NBC’s Carrie Dann has profiled 10 fresh faces to watch in the new Congress, and we’ll be previewing one of these each day. Today’s profile: Incoming Arizona congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema. Dann writes: “Fresh off a nasty campaign in which opponents painted her as a hippie who enjoys the occasional ‘pagan ritual,’ Arizona freshman Kyrsten Sinema is no stranger to tough campaigns. The first openly bisexual member of Congress, Sinema -- who served as an Arizona state house member and senator -- can also boast leading a 2006 effort to defeat a same-sex marriage ban ballot initiative in Arizona. The 36-year-old social worker, who once quipped that she's a ‘Prada socialist’ in a magazine interview, jousted with Gov. Jan Brewer on education issues during her tenure in the legislature, warranting a hefty contribution from the governor's political action committee to Sinema's opponents. Education policy, jobs, and addressing foreclosures will be her top priorities as a federal lawmaker. Sinema's spokesman recently told The New York Times that the new congresswoman, who was raised a Mormon, supports a ‘secular approach’ to government.”

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. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

*** Wednesday’s “The Daily Rundown” line-up: Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on the cliff clash… NBC’s Pete Williams on a coming court decision over President Obama’s recess appointments… A deep dive into what sequestration really means for the U.S. military… Plus TIME’s Nancy Gibbs, NY1’s Errol Louis and msnbc.com’s Richard Wolffe join the gaggle.

*** Wednesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews incoming GOP Policy Chairman, Rep. James Lankford; Chris Frates & Rana Faroohar; Rep. Luis Gutierrez on Immigration and the Latino Vote; Chris Kofinis & John Brabender on guns and politics; and Slate’s Matthew Yglesias on whether we should scrap the dollar bill.

*** Wednesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up:  MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), & Washington Post/Bloomberg Columnist Ezra Klein. Today’s Power Panel includes MSNBC Contributor Perry Bacon, MSNBC Contributor Ari Melber & Republican strategist Alice Stewart.

*** Wednesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), New York Magazine’s Benjamin Wallace-Wells; Bloomberg Businessweek’s Josh Green, the Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger, Fmr. DNC Communications Director Karen Finney, and RFK Center President Kerry Kennedy.

*** Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Sen. John Kerry, former Treasury official Roger Altman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, Congressman Tom Cole, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page, Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, and author Karen Avrich.

*** Wednesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), Rep. Allyson Schwarz (D-PA), Politico’s Roger Simon, Democratic strategist Keith Boykin, Real Clear Politics’ Erin McPike, The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard, and The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim.

The AP’s Pace: “It may be just a bluff or a bargaining ploy, but the White House is signaling that President Barack Obama is willing to let the country go over the ‘fiscal cliff,’ a hard-line negotiating strategy aimed at winning concessions from Republicans on taxes.”

The White House yesterday was trying to put going over the cliff squarely on Republicans. Said Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer: “This is a choice of the Republican Party. If they are willing to do higher rates on the wealthy, there’s a lot we can talk about. And if they are not, then they'll push us over the cliff.’’

“President Barack Obama will renew his case for tax hikes on wealthy Americans to avert a year-end fiscal crunch and call for a smooth increase in the nation's borrowing limit in a speech to a business group on Wednesday, a White House official said,” Reuters reports.

“Native American tribal leaders are concerned that steady progress on their issues might be undermined if President Barack Obama and Congress make deep spending cuts to avoid the ‘fiscal cliff,’” AP writes. “More than 500 tribal leaders were taking those concerns to the fourth White House Tribal Nations summit, which convenes Wednesday.”

“Vogue magazine editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, one of the most influential figures in fashion, is on President Obama’s short list to be the U.S. ambassador to either Britain or France,” the New York Daily News writes. “Wintour, 63, is under consideration not because of her fashion sense, but her fund-raising prowess. She was one of Obama’s top bundlers of donations in the campaign, raising more than $500,000 for his reelection.”

The New York Times: “With President Obama insisting on higher tax rates for affluent Americans and winning public support for the idea, Congressional Republicans find themselves in an increasingly difficult political spot and are quietly beginning to look for a way out.” More: The leadership officials now say that if no deal can be struck to avert the automatic expiration of all the Bush-era tax cuts and the onset of deep, across-the-board spending cuts, they could foresee taking up and passing legislation this month to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and then resume the bitter fight over spending and taxes as the nation approaches the next hard deadline: its statutory borrowing limit, which could be reached in late January or February.”

What it all boils down to… Politico: “Obama and Boehner are locked in a struggle for public opinion, the weapon that provides the upper hand in the negotiations. The advantage, at this point, clearly belongs to Obama. Senior administration aides say the president doesn’t want to go over the fiscal cliff — but he’s willing to if Republicans don’t yield on tax rates. And multiple polls find the public is on Obama’s side, showing that voters will blame the GOP if no deal is reached. Republicans are desperate to gain political ground — and say Monday’s counteroffer by Boehner at least gives them hope of turning public opinion back in their favor.”

USA Today’s editorial page praises the GOP counteroffer as “serious.” It writes: “Obama and fellow Democrats would do well to treat it for what it is: a credible bid to start dealing with runaway deficits. In fact, it is superior to the offer Obama put on the table last week, as it more aggressively targets the government's biggest budget problems and refrains from adding costly spending. The new GOP plan is, to be sure, far from perfect, particularly on the revenue side. Republicans continue to insist that additional tax revenue should come only from closing deductions, credits and other ‘tax expenditures,’ not from the higher rates they have pledged to oppose.”

The Boston Globe notes that the fiscal cliff deduction cap offered by Republicans would most affect the “comfortable”: “Whether you call yourself rich, fairly well-off, or merely upper-middle-class, you are in the crosshairs of the Washington tax debate. House Republicans’ proposals to cap or even eliminate itemized deductions would exact a bigger toll on upper- to high-income earners in the professional classes. These earners are not the Warren Buffetts and the Mitt Romneys. They are the smartly suited, rank-and-file achievers who populate financial districts and research parks. They drive base-model BMWs and have timeshares in Florida, not their own private islands. They are comfortable but still worry about college tuitions, retirement savings, vacation money — and they are the slice of America that relies most heavily on tax deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions to reduce their annual taxes, specialists say.”

“In the end, Kerry and other supporters fell five votes short of the 66 needed for ratification of the international pact known as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities -- hailed by advocates as a human rights effort to transform how nations across the world treat those with long-term physical, mental and intellectual impairments, particularly children who face a future of bleakness because of their disabilities,” the Boston Globe notes, adding, “The treaty had already been approved by the European Union and 125 countries, including China and Russia.”

More: The treaty was supported by President George W. Bush, who helped negotiate it and whose father, President George H. Bush, signed the ADA into law in 1990. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and requiring a wheelchair, returned to the chamber on Tuesday in a symbolic show of support for the treaty. Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and staunch supporter of the treaty, read from a letter written by Dole. But McCain’s fellow Republican from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, helped defeat the bill.”

Elizabeth Warren is "likely" to get a spot on the Banking Committee, a Democratic aide tells NBC.  "She is likely to get it," the aide said, "but nothing is final until everything's final." The aide warns: "Nothing's final until the slate is confirmed by the caucus. Reporting that she is definitely on it is premature."

But all signs are that Warren wants the assignment and is going to get it, despite reports that the banking lobby has tried to stop her from getting the post.

Kathleen Parker takes a shot at John McCain for his opposition to Susan Rice to be Secretary of State. The real reason, she says for the opposition: “She’s not a member of the most elite club in America, the U.S. Senate.” More: “[T]he opposition’s arguments are weak, chief among them that Rice isn’t qualified. This from McCain, whose vetting history includes about 80 minutes of conversation with Sarah Palin before selecting her as his running mate in 2008. McCain’s opinion about Rice’s qualifications is only slightly less compelling than his thoughts on Playtex vs. Spanx.”

“A Republican lawmaker says a new report that details how references to al-Qaeda were removed from White House talking points on the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi is further evidence the Obama administration tried to mislead the public about what happened,” USA Today writes. " ‘There appears to be a concerted effort to mislead the American people,’ says Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. ‘At this point the Obama administration has been elusive at best and misleading at worse.’”

What a story… the story of the seven-week congressman: “Newly elected Rep. Dave Curson moved into his spacious, sun-drenched Capitol Hill office three weeks ago, eager to savor every minute of his congressional career,” Politico notes. “And relish it he must: In four more weeks, it’ll all be over. The Michigan Democrat just won his first congressional race, but in a twist of redistricting he’s already a lame duck. He was elected to a mere seven-week stint, ending on Jan. 2, to finish out Republican former Rep. Thad McCotter’s term.

“Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, two potential 2016 presidential candidates, laid out policy prescriptions for their Republican Party on Tuesday night, nudging a party still smarting from Mitt Romney’s loss to President Barack Obama to reach out to a broader audience,” the AP writes.

“Paul Ryan took an unmistakable shot Tuesday at Mitt Romney’s assertion that 47 percent of Americans would never vote Republican because they are too dependent on government,” Politico notes. “‘Both parties tend to divide Americans into ‘our voters’ and ‘their voters,’ the Wisconsin congressman told hundreds of well-to-do conservatives at an awards dinner in a Washington ballroom. ‘Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American. I believe we can turn on the engines of upward mobility so that no one is left out from the promise of America.’”

Democrats want that Obama voter data.

Sheldon Adelson who spent more than $100 million on losing efforts in 2011 and 2012 says he’ll spend even “more” in future races. By the way, he calls himself basically a “social liberal,” “pro choice,” and even pro Dream Act.

Newt Gingrich says he won’t run for the Senate in Georgia in a primary challenge to Saxby Chambliss (R). But Herman Cain?

Stay classy, Ted Nugent: "Let's also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them. That's insane."

Where’s Jan Brewer? No one knew for a while, but turns out she’s in Afghanistan…

Almost a month has passed since Mitt Romney’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election, but the finger pointing continues. 

Some Republicans charge that Romney was a flawed candidate, while others insist the party’s image was a drag on the ticket.

The White House / Getty Images

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney shakes hands with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office November 29, 2012 in Washington, DC.

There’s the argument that the Romney campaign was outmaneuvered by the Obama effort, versus the belief that the country’s changing demographics ultimately doomed the former Massachusetts governor.

And then there’s the opinion of Romney chief strategist Stuart Stevens, who suggested that Republicans shouldn’t be pointing fingers at all.

But as the party begins looking ahead to the next presidential contest in 2016 and tries to learn from the lessons of November, the explanation for Romney’s loss is perhaps much simpler: all of the above.

“You win and lose as a team,” Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in an interview on MSNBC last week. “We have to look at everything we do -- from logistics to turnout to technology to message to tone.”

Indeed, top Republican strategists interviewed for this article attribute Romney’s defeat to a combination of factors, including the candidate’s inability to better define himself, the Republican Party’s unpopularity, the country’s changing demographics and a campaign whose tactics seemed stuck in the 20^th century.

Blaming the messenger and the message
There's an adage in American politics: Don't allow your opponent to define you before you define yourself.

But that's exactly what happened to Romney and his campaign, especially when it came to his business background.

Through television advertisements, its surrogates, and conference calls with reporters, the Obama camp and its allies portrayed Romney as an out-of-touch multi-millionaire who made his fortune, in part, by taking over companies that later laid off employees or cut their benefits.

One of the chief examples: “Mitt Romney made over $100 million by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives,” a man said in a TV ad by the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action. “Turns out that when we built that stage [to announce the company moves], it was like building my own coffin, and it just made me sick.”

Yet Romney’s campaign didn’t mount much of a defense -- particularly on the TV airwaves -- beyond arguing that such attacks smeared free enterprise. In fact, just a fraction of the ads aired by the Romney campaign and its allies portrayed the GOP candidate in a positive light.

“They did very, very little to prevent or defensively rebut the image Democrats put out there of Romney as the guy who laughed all the way to the bank with the mega-millions he made buying up companies and laying you/your dad/your brother off,” said one Republican consultant who requested anonymity to speak more candidly.

“There were voters there who should have voted for the Republican, but were never going to get behind Romney because of this perception. And that was predictable from the primary stage of the campaign."

What’s more, that perception of Romney was only reinforced by his infamous “47 percent” comment, the scrutiny over the release of his tax returns, and even his campaign's message, which seemed more targeted to entrepreneurs and business owners -- rather than teachers, firefighters or factory workers.

“We will champion small businesses, America’s engine of job growth,” Romney said at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. “That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most.”

What was the eventual result?

While the Romney campaign’s Stuart Stevens observes that exit polls showed the former Massachusetts governor winning a majority of voters from households earning $50,000 or more, Obama beat Romney by 10 points (53 percent to 43 percent) on the question of which candidate was more in touch with people like you.

In addition, 53 percent said Romney’s policies would favor the rich (versus just 10 percent who said the same about Obama). And the Republican candidate’s favorable/unfavorable score was 47 percent/50 percent (compared with Obama’s positive 53 percent/46 percent).

“At the end of the day, messenger and message matters in American politics,” said a Republican strategist who also requested anonymity.

Party crashing

But it wasn't just Romney who was unpopular; so was his party.

In one of the final NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls before the election, just 36 percent of registered voters said they had a positive opinion about the Republican Party, versus 43 percent who held a negative view.

By comparison, the Democratic Party’s favorable/unfavorable rating in that same late October NBC/WSJ poll was in positive territory, at 42 percent/40 percent. 

In fact, the last time the GOP’s favorable/unfavorable rating wasn’t below water in the survey was back in Dec. 2010 – two years ago.

And during that time span, the party endured negative headlines involving its politicians and candidates. Consider:

• The GOP presidential candidates engaged in about 20 debates, with them often trying to prove who was more conservative on social issues, immigration, taxes and foreign policy

• In Feb. 2012, Virginia’s GOP-controlled General Assembly passed legislation requiring transvaginal ultrasounds for those wanting an abortion in the state.  

• In August, Missouri Senate nominee Todd Akin explained his opposition to abortion in cases of rape, saying that pregnancies are rare. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

• And in October, about two weeks before Election Day, Indiana Senate nominee Richard Mourdock said this while justifying his opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Both Akin and Mourdock lost their Senate contests.

What’s more, problems with the Republican Party’s brand go beyond what took place in the last two years. According to the exit polls from last month’s election, 53 percent of voters blamed George W. Bush more for the country’s current economic problems. Just 38 percent blamed Obama.

Then there’s the GOP’s problem with Latino voters. While Romney’s poor performance with that demographic has received plenty of attention -- he won just 27 percent of these voters -- the party as a whole isn’t faring much better.

In an October NBC/WSJ/Telemundo survey of Latino voters, only 22 percent held a positive view of the GOP (compared with 63 percent who did for the Democratic Party).

And by a 65 percent to 23 percent margin, Latino voters in that same poll said they preferred a Democratic-held Congress to a Republican-held one.

"The party has got to learn from this,” said GOP strategist Liz Mair. “We've now had two successive presidential elections and two midterms where the party's stance on issues that are important to Hispanics has hurt us in key areas."

And the GOP finds itself trailing on key issues – some of which are pillars of today’s Republican Party.

According to the exit polls from the election, a combined 59 percent of voters said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Sixty percent said that taxes should be increased either for all or for income above $250,000.

The good news for the GOP on the issues: A plurality of voters favored repealing some or all of the 2010 health care law, and a majority said the government is doing too many things that are better left to businesses and individuals.

Demography is destiny

Despite his inability to better define himself and despite his party’s unpopularity, Romney won white voters by a whopping 20 points, 59 percent to 39 percent -- higher than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

As Republican pollster Glen Bolger points out, Romney also won white women (by 14 points points) and independents (by 5 points), better than a victorious George W. Bush did in 2004.

But Romney still lost in last month’s election – and by a more decisive margin than Democrat John Kerry did in that ’04 election.

The reason for this: the country’s demographics have changed.

As the Obama campaign had long assumed, the white portion of the electorate this year dropped to 72 percent -- from 74 percent in 2008 and 77 percent in 2004 -- and the president won fewer than four in 10 of those voters.

Yet he carried a whopping 93 percent of black voters (representing 13 percent of the electorate), 71 percent of Latinos (representing 10 percent), and 73 percent of Asians (3 percent).

What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters ages 18-29 made up 19 percent of the voting population -- up from 18 percent four years ago -- and Obama took 60 percent from that group.

“So, if you win the swing groups but lose the election, that means the Democrats have a clear home field advantage,” Bolger writes. “There are more Democrats.”

“That underscores that we have to do better as a party with Hispanics … It’s simple math, but it’s hard to do. We have to start today.”

Romney even acknowledged that reality at a closed-door fundraiser in April overheard by NBC News. "We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," he said, warning back then that polling showing Latinos breaking in huge percentages for Obama "spells doom for us."

‘A late 20^th century campaign’

The GOP also has to start today regaining a tactical advantage in presidential campaigns, Republicans say.

Whether it was its advertising, its polling or its get-out-the-vote effort, the Romney campaign paled in comparison to the Obama juggernaut.

"The Republicans basically ran a late 20th century campaign," said one advertising expert.

A case in point was ad buying. Even though the Romney campaign and GOP outside groups outspent the Obama camp and its allies in ad dollars, the Obama campaign still was able to run more advertising spots.

That was possible in part because the Obama camp bought its ads in advance -- often at a discount rate -- while the Romney effort was buying them the week before and not getting the discount.

For instance, in the last week of the election, a single advertising spot on the 5:00 p.m. local news in Raleigh, N.C., cost the Obama campaign $550 (because it was purchased in advance), while a spot on the same program cost the Romney camp $2,665 (because it was bought the week of).

So the Romney campaign here paid four times as much for the same programming slot, a practice which in the long run negated any kind of financial advantage it enjoyed.

Another example was the placement of those TV ads. One of the contributing factors why Romney lost big among Latino voters was that the Obama campaign outspent the Romney camp on Spanish-language TV by nearly 2-to-1 (and the margin was even greater during the summer).

And finally, there's the reality that the Obama campaign's ground game was more sophisticated than the one from the Republican Party.

“Future discussions about voter contact need to fit the times,” said Republican political consultant Phil Musser, who worked on Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign and Tim Pawlenty’s 2012 primary effort.

“Traditional door knocks and robo-calls are important, but are not what major donors want to hear about,” he added, referring to constant GOP references about the number of doors volunteers had knocked during the campaign. “They want to hear that our strategies reflect the more comprehensive, bottom-up, digital approach that the Obama campaign clearly excelled at.”

Of course, one of the big reasons for the Obama campaign's tactical advantage was its head start -- incumbents (especially those who don't face a primary challenge) simply have more time to prepare for the general election.

"Having four years to plan for an election is incredibly beneficial," said a Republican strategist who worked on the Romney campaign.

A pair of House Republicans stripped of their plum committee assignments lashed out Tuesday at the GOP leadership, suggesting they were punished for insisting on fealty to conservative principles.

Reps. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., and Justin Amash, R-Mich., huddled with conservatives after the Republican Steering Committee removed them from their seats on the House Budget Committee.

"It's petty, it's vindictive and if you have any conservative principle, you'll be punished," Huelskamp said at a briefing for conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.

Huelskamp and Amash, along with Reps. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., lost their seats on the budget panel and House Financial Services Committee after the GOP conference determined they were "not team players," in the words of one Republican aide.

That action has prompted a minor outcry among conservatives, who fear that lawmakers who cross the GOP leadership will be punished for their transgressions. That fear coincides with mounting concern on the right that Republican leaders will cut a "fiscal cliff" deal with President Barack Obama that results in higher taxes, through either increased rates or eliminated deductions.

Amash and Huelskamp said that they learned of losing their spots on those committees by reading reports in the media; they said that no Republican leaders had notified them of the changes.

"I've received not a single call from anyone in leadership, not a single email," Amash said. "I've been not told about what committees I will be on."

The Michigan congressman, who distinguished himself as one of the more libertarian-minded Republican congressmen during his first term in the House, suggested that his independence on issues (including supporting cuts to defense spending) had led GOP leaders to look to "silence" him.

Huelskamp said the suspected a video he produced last week re-affirming his support for a pledge vowing to never raise taxes contributed to his loss of the committee spot. The Kansas conservative furthermore said he feared Republicans might cave on the issue of taxes.

"I think there's going to be an attempt to pass a tax increase through the U.S. House, in exchange for what?" he asked.

President Barack Obama said that a deal to avert the fiscal cliff would not happen without higher income tax rates on the top two percent of earners in his first TV interview since his re-election.

"If we're going to raise revenues that are sufficient to balance with the very tough cuts that we've already made and the further reforms in entitlements that I’m prepared to make, then we’re going to have to see the rates on the top two percent go up," the president told Bloomberg television.

"And we're not going to be able to get a deal without it," he continued. "It's not me being stubborn -- it's not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math."

He said that getting Republicans to agree to higher tax rates was more urgent than meeting with House Speaker John Boehner to hammer out the rest of the details of the plan.

"I don’t think that the issue right now has to do with sitting in a room," he said.

Boehner led Republicans in offering a counter-proposal to Obama's own fiscal plan; the GOP proposal called for $800 billion in new revenue due to closing loopholes and deductions, though it would not increase tax rates on any Americans.

"Unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance," Obama said of Boehner's plan.

As though he needed it, House Speaker John Boehner received yet another reminder Tuesday of his principal challenge of finding a resolution to the fiscal cliff morass without alienating the core of his own party, a position that has been all too familiar in recent years.

Shortly after Republican House leaders offered a proposal to avert impending tax hikes and spending cuts, conservatives attacked it as a betrayal of core principles, putting the top GOP lawmaker in a difficult bargaining position against President Barack Obama.

"Speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more, while not reducing our $16 trillion debt by a single penny," Republican Sen. Jim DeMint said Tuesday in a statement. The South Carolina senator – an influential figure among conservatives – was referring to the new revenue projected in the GOP proposal that would come from closing loopholes and deductions in the tax code rather than rate increases.

Recommended - Poll: Public would blame GOP more for fiscal cliff failure

The White House rejected that proposal at first glance, reasoning that Boehner and House Republicans offered no concessions to Obama's central demand that income tax rates be allowed to increase for the wealthiest Americans.

In short, Boehner is being pulled in opposite directions by an administration which demands more compromise from Republicans, and by conservatives who expect the speaker to cede no ground. That leaves him with few options to craft a deal. (Boehner allies point, ironically, to some past comments by DeMint suggesting allowing some tax increases might be politically expedient.)

Tim Phillips, the president of the Koch Brothers-backed group Americans for Prosperity, said Monday that Boehner's proposal "leaves conservatives wanting."

"By placing an $800 billion tax hike on the table, Republican Leaders are engaging in little more than pre-emptive capitulation," Heritage Action -- the political wing of the Heritage Foundation think tank -- said in talking points provided Monday to its followers. "The latest Republican proposal to President Obama is nothing but bad policy and a highly questionable negotiating tactic."

This pressure on Boehner from his right flank could have the unintended benefit of signaling to the White House just how narrow his space to negotiate really is. But if Republican leaders do strike a deal with Obama, rank-and-file GOP lawmakers might publicly break with their leaders for fear of alienating constituents and incurring a primary challenge in 2014.

That’s a now-familiar dynamic to anyone who closely tracked the fiscal fights which dominated Congress for much of 2011. The government was brought to the brink of shutdown several times as conservatives balked at supporting deals Boehner had struck with Obama and the Democratic-held Senate. This same discord produced that summer’s debt limit deal, which established the automatic spending cuts that make up half of the fiscal cliff.

It’s this same cast of characters who must now forge the kind of compromise which has eluded Washington for months.

“We're nowhere. We're farther than where we started,” Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the former GOP vice presidential nominee, said of the negotiations Tuesday on WTMJ radio in Wisconsin. He said that Obama is now demanding higher tax rates than the ones on which he had campaigned.

Related: Fiscal cliff deal may be found in the middle

As if to illustrate the delicate balance Boehner must strike, when Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole suggested last week that Republicans should accede to Obama’s request that Congress authorize extended tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of earners, the GOP speaker emerged to dismiss it. “I told Tom earlier at our conference meeting that I disagreed with him,” Boehner said.

Adding to Republicans’ political headache was a new poll released Tuesday suggesting Republicans would assume the lion’s share of blame from voters if the government were to cross into the fiscal cliff. Fifty-three percent of Americans said Republicans in Congress would be more to blame for a failure to reach consensus in a Nov. 29-Dec. 2 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post. That’s unchanged from a month ago, despite a messaging barrage by both GOP leaders and the president over the past few weeks.

“If you watch the nature of what Republicans have done here, we’ve talked about this and passed legislation last year,” House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., responded on CNBC. “We’ve responded to every presidential proposal. We’ve been first on the mix. The actions don’t hold up to where the polls are, but we want to make sure we solve this problem and that we don’t go over the fiscal cliff.”

News reported Monday by NBC that Boehner had moved to strip four GOP lawmakers of plum committee assignments due to disloyal behavior during the past two years has only threatened to exacerbate tensions between Boehner and influential conservatives, too.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, leaves after a news conference Nov. 30, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

"The dirty little secret in Congress is that while refusing to kowtow to the wishes of party leaders can sometimes cost you some perks in Washington, the taxpayers back home are grateful," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola.

"This is a clear attempt on the part of Republican leadership to punish those in Washington who vote the way they promised their constituents they would -- on principle -- instead of mindlessly rubber-stamping trillion dollar deficits and the bankrupting of America," added Matt Kibbe, of the Tea Party-oriented group FreedomWorks.

As Republicans and the White House continue to jostle over the "fiscal cliff," the public remains pessimistic about a solution and is largely prepared to blame the GOP if no agreement is reached.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post shows that only four in 10 adults believe that the two sides will hammer out an agreement to dodge the fiscal cliff by its Jan. 1 deadline, while nearly half (49 percent) believe no deal will get done in time.

What's more -- in a trend surely being eyed by the Obama administration -- the public still appears ready to place blame for the impasse on congressional Republicans over the White House by a nearly 2-1 margin.

With a divide similar to public perceptions earlier in November, 53 percent of those surveyed said they would point the finger at the GOP for the failure of the negotiations, while just 27 percent say the president would be at fault.

While Democrats surveyed are far more optimistic than Republicans about an agreement (by 55 to 22 percent), all partisan groups appear uncertain about exactly what the consequences of the cliff's automatic spending cuts and tax increases could be. Only about a third of adults overall say they understand the effects of the fiscal cliff "very well," but over 60 percent say those effects will have a "major effect" on the US economy. But not as many respondents think that a tumble over the cliff will dramatically affect their own lives, with 43 percent saying the cuts and taxes would have a "major effect" on their personal finances and 35 percent labeling the consequences "minor" in their own lives.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks during a GOP news conference on the "fiscal cliff", on Capitol Hill in Washington, November 28, 2012.

The survey was conducted between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2 among 1,003 adults. It has a 3.7 percent margin of error among its overall sample of adults.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday takes up the issue of a president's power to make appointments when the Senate is out of town, one that has divided Congress and the White House for decades.

Last January, President Barack Obama infuriated Senate Republicans by naming Richard Cordray to be director of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and putting three new members on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

"It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward," House Speaker John Boehner said at the time. "I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."

Now the issue is squarely before the courts.  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., is taking up a challenge to the appointments, hearing a lawsuit brought by a Pacific Northwest soft drink bottler who lost a union dispute before the NLRB.

The company claims that the president had no power to appoint the new NLRB members and that the subsequent action by the board therefore lacked legitimacy. Similar challenges are pending in federal courts around the nation, brought with the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.

At the core of the dispute is a provision of Article II of the Constitution, setting out the president's duties and authorities. They include "the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."

During the nation's first century, Congress was in session less than half a year. Recess appointment power allowed the president to keep the government functioning by filling important jobs when the Senate was not around to confirm nominations.

In modern times, presidents of both parties have used the power to make appointments during much shorter congressional recesses in the summer and around holidays. 

But during the George H.W. Bush administration, Democrats came up with the idea of pro forma sessions, in which the body was gaveled to order then immediately adjourned for another few days. They claimed that the Senate remained in session and that recess appointments could not be made. Senate Republicans have since continued the pro forma practice. 

"Such short intra-session breaks are not recesses," the bottling company argues in court papers.  "Otherwise, every weekend, night or lunch break would be a 'recess' too."

What's more, the company argues, the Senate, not the president, is the proper judge of whether it is in recess, and it agreed by unanimous consent to remain in session from mid-December to mid-January.  During that period, on Dec. 23, the Senate passed an extension to the payroll tax cut, the company notes.

Senate Republicans have filed their own friend-of-court brief. They argue that by declaring the Senate incapable of performing its functions during the pro-forma sessions, "the president usurped the Senate's control of its own procedures. And by appointing officers without the Senate's consent, he took away its right to review and reject his nominations."

But the Obama Justice Department argues that the pro forma procedures, each lasting less than a minute, are a sham and do not mean the Senate was actually in session. "It could not provide advice or consent on presidential nominations during that 20-day period," government lawyers argue.

In agreeing to its holiday break, Justice Department lawyers note, the Senate "provided by order that 'no business' would be conducted."

The government lawyers say there's nothing mysterious about the meaning of the word recess -- "a break by the Senate from its usual business, such as periods in which the Framers anticipated that senators would return to their respective states."

"The pro forma sessions were not designed to permit the Senate to do business, but rather to ensure that no business was done," the Justice Department says.

President Obama invoked the recess appointment power 32 times during his first term to fill vacancies in full-time government positions, though he has not made any such appointments since last January's controversy. President Clinton made 95 recess appointments during his administration; President George W. Bush used the power 99 times. 

If, as seems likely, the issue gets to the Supreme Court, the justices could settle a passionate debate over a presidential power used hundreds of times, stirring controversy since the beginning.

The GOP makes its counteroffer… And it (as well as the White House’s proposal last week) seems more geared to playing to the base… But if you split the difference between the two offers, you see the outline of a pretty serious deal… Boehner’s power move… Obama meets with governors at 10:10 am ET and then conducts an interview with Bloomberg News… And Team Romney’s regret -- immigration.

*** Playing to the base: Congressional Republicans yesterday unveiled their counteroffer to the White House in the budget negotiations to resolve the looming tax increases and spending cuts that will automatically begin at the beginning of the year. That counteroffer, per NBC’s Luke Russert and Mike O’Brien: $800 billion in new revenue (through closing loopholes), $600 billion in cuts to federal health-care programs (so Medicare and Medicaid), $200 billion in savings by adjusting the cost-of-living increases in Social Security and Medicare, $300 billion in discretionary cuts, and another $300 billion in mandatory cuts. Given that the GOP proposal raises revenues -- but not rates on the wealthy -- the White House and Democrats immediately rejected it. "The Republican letter released today does not meet the test of balance,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. “Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve.” But let’s be honest: Just like the White House’s proposal last week, this GOP move is largely playing to the base rather than being a serious offer.

Roger L. Wollenberg / Getty Images

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speak to the media at the White House on Nov. 16, 2012 in Washington, DC.

*** Splitting the difference: While the two proposals seem far apart -- and they are -- look at them when you split the difference between the two. You get $1.2 trillion in revenue and about $450 to $500 billion in savings to Medicare and Medicaid. And then say you throw in some stimulus for the Democrats (unemployment insurance, transportation spending), as well as the cost-of-living adjustments on Social Security for Republicans. That sounds like a pretty serious deal that both sides could live with, though it would look more like a “win” for the White House. Of course, Republicans would have to relent (in some form or fashion) on rates going up, while Democrats would have to acquiesce (one way or another) on the Social Security. In the New York Times, David Brooks sees a similar middle ground. “Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates. The only question is what they get in return. What they should demand is this: That the year 2013 will be spent putting together a pro-growth tax and entitlement reform package that will put this country on a sound financial footing through 2040.” Folks, there’s definitely a way to resolve this. The only question is if there’s the will.

*** Boehner’s power move: Speaking of will, check out this other news from Capitol Hill: “Four House Republicans have been stripped of their committee seats after it was determined by the Republican conference that they were ‘not team players,’” NBC’s Frank Thorp reports. More: “The decision made Monday during a meeting of the Republican Steering Committee strips Reps. David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Walter Jones (R-NC) of their seats on the Financial Services Committee, and Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) of their seats on the House Budget Committee.” Pure and simple, this is a power move by House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership to signal to their members that they’re in charge. Our question: Does the move enforce party discipline (especially in forging a fiscal-cliff deal), or does it backfire?

*** Obama’s day: Today at the White House, President Obama and Vice President Biden meet with governors from across the country to discuss the fiscal/budget negotiations at 10:10 am ET. USA Today: “The president's guests include three Republican governors -- one of them Scott Walker of Wisconsin, whose battles with public employee unions made headlines throughout the recent election season. Gov. Jack Markell, D-Del., chairman of the National Governors Association, will also be in the meeting with Obama. So will the NGA Vice Chair, Gov. Mary Fallin, R-Okl. The other attendees: Gov. Mike Beebe, D-Ark., Gov. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., and Gov. Gary Herbert, R-Utah.” In addition, Obama sits down for his first TV interview since the election with Bloomberg News at 12:30 pm ET.

*** Team Romney’s regret -- immigration: Out of all the dispatches and news from Harvard’s campaign-manager recap of the 2012 presidential election, this might be the most interesting: Romney Campaign Manager Matt Rhoades said he regretted Romney’s hard right turn on immigration. Per the New York Times, “When asked directly whether Mr. Romney regretted tacking to the right on immigration to appeal to conservative primary voters, the room fell silent. Stuart Stevens, a senior strategist to Mr. Romney, shook his head no. But after pausing for several seconds, Mr. Rhoades said, ‘I regret that.’ He went on to explain that the campaign, in hindsight, had been too worried about a potential threat from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who jumped into the race to challenge Mr. Romney as the jobs-and-economy candidate. For weeks in fall 2011, Mr. Romney hammered Mr. Perry on Social Security, particularly his calling the program a ‘Ponzi scheme’ that should be overtaken by state governments. In retrospect,” Mr. Rhoades said, ‘I believe that we could have probably just beaten Governor Perry with the Social Security hit.’”

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. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

*** Tuesday’s “The Daily Rundown” line-up: Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-GA, on finding a fiscal deal… NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski on concerns over the prospect of chemical weapons in Syria and Iran’s claim to have captured a U.S. drone… The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman with a deep dive into the voting numbers that drove President Obama’s victory… More on today’s disability treaty debate in the Senate and the festering fiscal cliff clash with Democratic pollster Margie Omero, the Rothenberg Report/Roll Call’s Nathan Gonzales and Heritage Action’s Tripp Baird.

*** Tuesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), National Journal Hotline’s Reid Wilson and DailyBeast Contributor Allison Samuels.  Today’s Power Panel includes: USA Today’s Jackie Kucinich, Democratic strategist Morris Reid, and Republican strategist Alfonso Aguilar.

*** Tuesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, Jon Meacham, Author, “Thomas Jefferson,” The New York Times’ Frank Bruni, theGrio.com Managing Editor Joy Reid, and Salon.com’s Irin Carmon

*** Tuesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Sen. Kent Conrad, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, former Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller, and former Sen. Judd Gregg.

*** Tuesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Rep Adam Schiff (D-CA), Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (who meet with the president today), Politico’s Lois Romano, Daily Beast contributor and “No Labels” co-founder Mark McKinnon, and Democratic strategist Chris Koffinis.

The Boston Globe: “The Republican plan, outlined in a three-page letter sent to the White House, sets out to raise $800 billion in new revenue over the next decade through closing unspecified tax loopholes and cut $1.2 trillion through a battery of changes, which could include raising the eligibility age for Medicare. In addition, House Republicans proposed saving $200 billion through slowing the government’s increases in payments for programs such as Social Security. The plan – which was quickly and emphatically dismissed by the White House -- ignores the centerpiece of Obama’s blueprint: allowing tax cuts to expire for the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers. But it does provide the framework for discussion in the coming days, now that both sides have publicly outlined their starting positions.”

Republicans also claimed their plan was based on congressional testimony by former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles. But “Bowles distanced himself from the House Republicans proposal and said the ideas outlined in their letter do not ‘represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan.’ ‘To reach an agreement, it will be necessary for both sides to move beyond their opening positions and reach agreement on a comprehensive plan which avoids the fiscal cliff and puts the debt on a clear downward path relative to the economy,’ Bowles said in a statement.”

More Bowles: "While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something 'the Bowles plan,' the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the president does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan," Bowles said in a statement released Monday afternoon.”

The L.A. Times: “Under pressure from the White House to make a specific deficit reduction proposal, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Monday countered with one that rejects higher tax rates for the wealthy and deeply cuts Medicare, Social Security and other safety net programs.”

Despite bipartisan support for an international treaty that endorses disability rights, “Republican senators threaten to kill the pact Tuesday based on what proponents call groundless allegations that it would encourage abortions overseas, threaten home-schooling programs domestically and elsewhere, and potentially separate children from their parents,” the Boston Globe reports. “The conservative Heritage Foundation is among opponents who also have suggested that giving an international entity advocacy powers for the disabled would erode US sovereignty and pose threats to the profits of American multinational corporations.”

Heritage Action and the Club for Growth “lashed out against a pair of decisions by Speaker John Boehner’s leadership team as House Republicans saw their tightly held grip on the right loosen a bit on Monday,” Politico writes. Heritage didn’t like Boehner’s fiscal cliff offer because he put revenue into the mix and the Club for Growth defended four members GOP leadership stripped of committee posts.

Americans for Prosperity is also among the groups critical of the proposal. National Journal: “Scoot over Democrats. The far right is launching its own attacks against Speaker John Boehner’s ‘fiscal cliff’ counter proposal—a sign that unrest could be brewing within his House GOP Conference. … Such rapid-fire conservative backlash underscores—once again—that the Ohioan and his leadership team face more than a tough fight to reach a compromise with Obama and Democrats to resolve a year-end fiscal crisis.”

“Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), freshly reelected to her ninth term in Congress, announced Monday that she would resign in February and become the president and chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn., the top donor to her campaigns during her congressional career,” the L.A. Times writes. “Emerson, who was elected to her late husband Bill Emerson’s seat in a 1996 special election and was the first woman to represent Missouri in the House, handily won reelection earlier this year over Democratic rival Jack Rushin with nearly 72% of the vote. One of the few women to hold Republican leadership positions in Congress, Emerson was chairwoman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee and sat on the House Appropriations Committee.”

Dick Armey quit FreedomWorks.

“With an immigration overhaul on next year’s agenda, House Republicans must decide which members of their conference will play a visible role in the negotiations — an important consideration for a party that is struggling to attract Latino voters,” Roll Call writes.

Obama sits down for his first TV interview since the election with Bloomberg News at 12:30 pm ET.

The White House responded to the GOP counteroffer by saying the plan "does not meet the test of balance,” USA Today writes. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer: “In fact, it actually promises to lower rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve. Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires."

USA Today: “President Obama and Senate Democrats have said that without a deal to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans there is no path forward to avert the fiscal cliff at the end of the year when George W. Bush-era tax rates expire and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years are triggered.”

“As the White House and congressional Republicans try to keep the nation from going over the so-called fiscal cliff, a new survey finds that the public is amenable to raising taxes on wealthier Americans and as averse as ever to cutting entitlement programs,” National Journal writes. “The results are found in the latest edition of the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, which tracks public opinion about important issues facing Congress. On the contentious question of whether the Senate should approve the nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice if President Obama picks her to be secretary of State, a slim majority of respondents—51 percent—favored her approval, while 35 percent said that her nomination should be rejected if it’s put before the Senate.”

USA Today: “President Obama is looking for new allies in the fiscal cliff fight, meeting Tuesday with a group of six governors at the White House.” More: “The president's guests include three Republican governors -- one of them Scott Walker of Wisconsin, whose battles with public employee unions made headlines throughout the recent election season. Gov. Jack Markell, D-Del., chairman of the National Governors Association, will also be in the meeting with Obama. So will the NGA Vice Chair, Gov. Mary Fallin, R-Okl. The other attendees: Gov. Mike Beebe, D-Ark., Gov. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., and Gov. Gary Herbert, R-Utah.”

Charlie Cook: “This whole process is going to be long, difficult, frustrating, and painful. Moods will rise and fall, and my guess is that the financial markets may well have some pretty exciting days, in the same ways that roller coasters are alternately exhilarating and terrifying. My hunch is that some kind of stopgap deal will be done to either head off sequestration or control it so that the across-the-board federal spending cuts to defense and domestic programs (except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a few others) will not automatically kick in. That will enable reaching a bigger agreement early next year. It would not surprise me to see the full array of Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, only increasing the pressure on Republicans to cut some kind of a deal that they would have previously considered unacceptable. We will likely see a series of budget deals, each hard fought, gradually taking in more elements until a “grand bargain” is finally reached.”

More: “While, technically speaking, November’s election produced no changes in leadership—the White House and Senate are still in Democratic hands, and the House is still under GOP control—the zeitgeist seems very different. The testosterone levels on the Republican side are dramatically lower than two years or, for that matter, two months ago. Although it is not unfair for Republicans to see last week’s opening offer from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as little short of an insult, one gets the sense that Democrats know they will end up with a deal that looks nothing like that.”

The contentious issues are not just on the domestic front. “President Obama warned Syrian dictator Bashar Assad on Monday that the use of chemical weapons is ‘totally unacceptable,’ and he will be punished if they are deployed against rebel forces,” USA Today writes. “‘The world is watching,’ Obama said of Assad during a Washington symposium on nuclear non-proliferation. ‘If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable.’ He added: ‘We simply cannot allow the 21st century to be darkened by the worst weapons of the 20th century.’”

Immigration on deck… “President Barack Obama won reelection with overwhelming support from Hispanics — and now Latino megadonors aligned with the White House are trying to mobilize that community behind his second-term agenda,” Politico reports, adding, “Led by a trio of top fundraisers that includes actress Eva Longoria, the effort comes out of The Futuro Fund, a national initiative of Latino leaders who helped reelect Obama. Organizers are aiming to marshal the support of the thousands of Hispanics it galvanized during the campaign to create a robust online and social media presence that can pressure Congress into acting on immigration reform. But it could cause friction with more traditional Hispanic civil rights groups, like the League of United Latin American Citizens and National Council of La Raza, that have spent decades lobbying for an overhaul of the country’s immigration laws. It could also spell trouble for Republicans looking to make inroads with Hispanics after their electoral drubbing.”

Not exactly, but Mike Bloomberg reportedly urged Clinton to run for the seat he now holds in 2013, the New York Daily News writes.

ALASKA: “Alaska Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell announced Friday that he was forming an exploratory committee for a 2014 Senate bid,” Hotline On Call writes.

ARIZONA: “Democratic Rep.-elect Kyrsten Sinema has not even been sworn in, and Arizona Republicans are already abuzz about candidates preparing to take her on in 2014,” Roll Call writes.

KENTUCKY: Actress Ashley Judd “is seriously exploring a 2014 run” against Mitch McConnell in 2014 for the Senate, Politico reports.

SOUTH DAKOTA: “Former South Dakota GOP Gov. Mike Rounds officially announced his 2014 Senate bid Thursday, making him the GOP's second strong Senate recruit to announce a bid last week -- the other being Rep. Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia. His announcement prompted a statement from Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson in which he seemed to move toward saying he'd run for reelection. But it's too soon to say if the field is set in the Mount Rushmore state,” Hotline On Call writes.

VIRGINIA: “Former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe's unveiled his second round of campaign co-chairs in his gubernatorial run from prominent Democrats across the state Monday, sending a signal to former Rep. Tom Perriello (D) that he is taking in significant establishment support,” Hotline On Call writes.

WEST VIRGINIA: “Not again. Those two words encompass the panic in GOP establishment circles following the criticism conservative activist groups leveled at Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito after she announced her plans to challenge Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia in 2014,” Roll Call writes.

Mitt Romney’s rejoining the board of Marriott.

Romney had three of the top “memes” in online searches, and none of them were good.

What happens to Super PACs when the election is over? Now, they’re trying to influence the fiscal cliff negotiations and lobby. “The National Association of Realtors is among a slew of groups clamoring to be heard in the negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff of across-the-board spending cuts mandated by Congress in 2011 and the scheduled expiration of George W. Bush-era tax cuts,” USA Today writes. “Like the Realtors, a growing number of groups racing to shape policy in the year-end talks and in the new Congress that will convene in January are armed with super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the debate and run ads praising or criticizing lawmakers.”

Some will become household names, and some may be doomed to a quick re-election defeat or to toil away in anonymity. But every two years, new freshmen members of Congress descend on Capitol Hill, representing the country's changing landscape with their politics and their life stories. 

The new ranks will be flush with record-breakers when they arrive in Washington. The 113th Congress will welcome the first openly gay senator, the first Asian-American woman in the Senate and first bisexual member of Congress. A new Latino senator -- one of just three -- is already snagging headlines for voicing a new vision of the Republican party. A record-breaking 20 women will serve in the upper chamber, and 78 will be seated in the United States House. Sixteen new members served in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Four new LGBT individuals were elected, almost doubling the number of openly gay lawmakers on the Hill.  

While the whims of a 24-hour news cycle can elevate any fresh face at the drop of a hat -- or the click of a tweet -- here's a first look at 10 interesting new people to watch as the 113th Congress convenes. 

TED CRUZ, R-Tex.
Even before being sworn in, newly elected Texas senator Ted Cruz grabbed headlines last week when he delivered a wide-ranging speech about the future of the GOP, coining "opportunity conservativism" to describe his vision for a Republican rebranding.

Cruz, a Cuban-American whose support from Tea Party groups propelled him to victory over Texas Lt. Gov David Dewhurst in a July primary, said in remarks at an American Principles Project event that Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comment should have been flatly disavowed by conservatives.

Sen.-elect Ted Cruz, R-Texas speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 13.

"We embraced in that comment, and in the narrative we made to this country, the Democrat notion that there is a fixed and static pie," he said. "The essence of the conservative message should be we want a dynamic nation where anybody with nothing can achieve anything."  

The freshman -- who benefited from endorsements by Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint -- will add to the Senate's ranks of Tea Party-aligned conservatives, while his legal background as a solicitor general and onetime Supreme Court law clerk will likely make him a sought-after voice on Constitutional issues.

Video: Cruz says Obama Obsessed With Raising Taxes

Look for Cruz, one of just three Latino senators, to join colleague Marco Rubio as an influential voice in Republican soul-searching over their the party's drubbing with minority voters in the 2012 election.

HEIDI HEITKAMP, D-N.D.
The daughter of a school custodian, Heidi Heitkamp once spent a summer working on a highway construction crew to put herself through school. The Democrat served as North Dakota's attorney general and as the executive of an energy company before scoring an upset win last month over Republican Senate candidate Rick Berg. 

The onetime director of Dakota Gasification Company, which operates a plant that turns coal into natural gas, Heitkamp is squarely at odds with her party's own standard bearer on energy issues. Asked during a campaign forum what she would tell President Barack Obama about the nation's energy policy, she flatly stated that the administration is "wrong." 

Heidi Heitkamp smiles as she speaks to supporters during a campaign stop at the Coordinated Campaign HQ in Grand Forks, N.D, on Nov. 5.

"You're wrong on energy. You're headed in the wrong direction. You made bad decisions," she said, according to The Associated Press. "You promised that you would promote clean coal technologies, that you would be a champion of coal, and you haven't done it." She also urged the president to replace Energy Secretary Steven Chu and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. 

A Democrat who eked out a narrow win in a state that voted for Mitt Romney by 20 points, Heitkamp faces targeting by Republicans hoping to lure red-state Democrats over to their side on key issues. She'll be a player on agriculture issues; she has said she's been offered a spot on the Senate agriculture committee and that she hopes to help shepherd a five-year Farm Bill to passage. 

TAMMY BALDWIN, D-Wis.
Tammy Baldwin would have made history just as the first female senator from Wisconsin, but she captured the national spotlight as the first openly gay person ever elected to the United States Senate. Although she is a longtime advocate of LGBT rights, Baldwin's sexual orientation never became a major issue in her bitter race against former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, which racked up a $65 million advertising bill between the two candidates. 

Tammy Baldwin celebrates her victory over Republican candidate Tommy Thompson on election night on Nov. 6 in Madison, Wis.

Before her Senate run, Baldwin served seven terms in the House, sitting on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as earlier stints on the bodies that cover judiciary and budget matters.

In 2009, she authored a legislative amendment requiring that insurance companies allow children to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26, one of the more enduringly popular pieces of the Obama administration's health-care law. And with her swearing-in still weeks away, she has already jumped into the fray on the ongoing fiscal cliff talks, urging the president to adopt the "Buffett Rule," which would tax Americans with incomes over $1 million at a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate.

Video: Baldwin ‘honored’ to be first openly gay senator 

"In addition to letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for incomes above $250,000 as you have pledged to do, we believe it is imperative to enact a safeguard to ensure that the highest-earning Americans cannot subvert the progressivity of the tax code through loopholes and special rates not available to middle-class families," she and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., wrote in a November 29 letter. 

ANGUS KING, I-Maine
As the dust settled from the 2012 election, all eyes in Washington briefly turned to the mustachioed new senator from the deep blue state of Maine.

Angus King, the state's first independent to be elected to the Senate, had not formally indicated during his three-way race whether he would caucus with Democrats or Republicans for purposes of organization. On Nov. 14, King -- who served two terms as the state's independent governor -- announced that he would align with Democrats. 

Senator-elect Angus King on Nov. 13 in Washington, D.C.

In a statement, King said he considered forgoing any formal alliance with either party but that Senate rules would render him dramatically less effective to his constituents as a truly unaffiliated member of the body because of seniority. "I have decided to affiliate with the Democratic Caucus because doing so will allow me to take independent positions on issues as they arise and at the same time be an effective representative of the people of Maine," he said. 

With his pledges to work across the aisle, King would join a long lineage of Maine legislators who fashioned themselves as compromise-minded moderates. His predecessor, Republican Olympia Snowe, was one of only three GOP senators to support the Obama stimulus package in 2009 and voted to confirm both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.

(Snowe was joined on those and many other party-bucking votes by colleague Susan Collins, also from Maine.) 

King hopes to be a player on the issues of campaign finance and reform of the Senate filibuster, which King said has been employed "excessively" in recent years. 

ELIZABETH WARREN. D-Mass.
A longtime thorn in the side of Wall Street's big banks, Elizabeth Warren first earned a national profile when foes successfully campaigned against her appointment to the directorship of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog body that she masterminded. 

U.S. Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., left, faces reporters during a news conference in Boston on Nov. 8.

Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who helped oversee the bank bailout, has used blunt rhetoric to paint banks as remorseless perpetrators of the financial crisis. "Wall Street CEOs --  the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs -- still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them," she said during her speech at the Democratic National Convention.

In November, Warren defeated Republican Senator Scott Brown, who rose to national prominence when he won the seat formerly held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in a special 2010. 

Video: Elizabeth Warren says her win is 'a win for the middle class'

Now, Warren is widely expected to play a role in Democrats' attempts to further reform the banking industry, with a possible appointment to the Senate Banking Committee. But the financial lobby has reportedly mounted an effort to keep her off the panel that drafts industry regulation, meaning that her high-profile clashes with Wall Street could get yet more ink in the coming months. 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, D-Ill.
An Iraq War helicopter pilot who lost both legs in a 2004 grenade attack, Tammy Duckworth will walk the halls of Congress on prosthetic limbs. After defeat in a 2006 run, Duckworth won her second bid for the U.S. House by defeating Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a Tea Party devotee, in the state's newly redrawn 8th District. 

In what she describes as her "bonus time" after the attack that could have left her for dead, Duckworth has championed the rights of disabled veterans, serving as an assistant secretary in the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Obama administration. 

Tammy Duckworth arrives to pose for a class picture with other new members of the 113th Congress on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 15 in Washington D.C.

Duckworth advocates for some cuts to military spending, a position that frequently earns her fellow Democrats the label of "weak on national security." But as a Purple Heart recipient with a high profile and a long family history of military service, she will be a visible advocate for the paring down of the defense budget while enjoying relative immunity from Republicans wary of questioning her record.

(Just ask Walsh, her Republican opponent, who faced a blistering outcry during the campaign after he implied that Duckworth was not a "true hero" because of frequent mentions of her disability.)  

Not that Duckworth is a shrinking violet from the harder edge of politics. "There's nothing anyone can say to me or do to me -- short of actually pointing a gun and shooting at me -- that's going to be as bad as it was in Iraq and that year I spent recovering," she recently told NBCNews.com in an interview. "So it's really freeing."

KYRSTEN SINEMA, D-Ariz.
Fresh off a nasty campaign in which opponents painted her as a hippie who enjoys the occasional "pagan ritual," Arizona freshman Kyrsten Sinema is no stranger to tough campaigns. The first openly bisexual member of Congress, Sinema -- who served as an Arizona state house member and senator -- can also boast leading a 2006 effort to defeat a same-sex marriage ballot initiative in Arizona. 

Rep.-elect Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., is seen during a news conference with newly elected Democratic House members, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Nov. 13.

The 36-year-old social worker, who once quipped that she's a "Prada socialist" in a magazine interview, jousted with Gov. Jan Brewer on education issues during her tenure in the legislature, warranting a hefty contribution from the governor's political action committee to Sinema's opponents. Education policy, jobs, and addressing foreclosures will be her top priorities as a federal lawmaker.

Video: Congress’ first bisexual lawmaker proud of ‘diverse’ class

Sinema's spokesman recently told The New York Times that the new congresswoman, who was raised a Mormon, supports a "secular approach" to government. 

TED YOHO, R-Fla.
The country met Ted Yoho this year through his hogs. A large animal veterinarian in north central Florida, the conservative won national attention for a quirky ad that featured piggy-looking "career politicians" in business suits feeding at a trough alongside real porkers.

In this 2012 photograph provided by the candidate's campaign, Ted Yoho poses for a photo.

Yoho, a proponent of the consumption-based Fair Tax, has said that he won't be put into political "handcuffs" by signing anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist's pledge. "If you sign a pledge like [Norquist's], you've got handcuffs on," he told NPR.

The upset winner of a primary against 12-term incumbent Rep. Cliff Stearns, Yoho imitated NFL player Tim Tebow's prayerful victory kneel for supporters after his win.

He has promised constituents that he will serve no longer than eight years in Congress.

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, R-Okla.
When his father's illness forced Markwayne Mullin to quit college and take over the family plumbing business, the 20-year-old and his wife turned a flailing enterprise into a small eastern Oklahoma empire. Mullin, now 35, won the House seat vacated by retiring Rep. Dan Boren, running under the banner "A rancher. A businessman. Not a politician!" 

Republican candidate Markwayne Mullin, right, answers a question during a debate at Rogers State University in Claremore, Okla., on Oct. 29, 2012.

The Tulsa native -- a social conservative who vehemently opposes "amnesty" proposals -- has promised to take a no-frills attitude to the halls of Congress. Casually dressed on election night, he joked with supporters that he defied his campaign staff's request that he wear a suit to deliver his victory speech. "They got me this far, and boots are going to take me all the way there and bring me all the way back" from Washington, he said. 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, D-N.Y. 
A former senior adviser in President Bill Clinton's administration, Sean Patrick Maloney also worked as a staffer for New York governors Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson before mounting his own political run. 

Maloney unseated Republican Rep. Nan Hayworth in a New York's redrawn 18th District. 

/

Sean Patrick Maloney is interviewed at Roll Call in Washington, D.C., July 19, 2012.

The first openly gay New York congressman, Maloney and his partner Randy Florke have three adopted children together. 

Maloney once told New York Magazine that his hero is fictional lawyer Atticus Finch and came in third in New York's 2006 Democratic primary for attorney general.

In addition to his career as a behind-the-scenes political aide, Maloney also made a name at two prestigious New York law firms. He was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP before moving to Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. 

ALAN GRAYSON, D-Fla.

He's ba-ack. 

Alan Grayson, the quotable liberal firebrand whose zippy insults served as cable catnip during his previous stint in Congress, will be back on the Hill again next year. After losing his 2010 re-election bid, Grayson moved to a new Orlando district and sailed to victory this year over Republican Todd Long.

Rep. Alan Grayson listens to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke testify during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Oct. 1, 2009 in Washington, D.C.

The man who disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner once labelled as "one fry short of a happy meal," has garnered frequent outrage for his rhetorical bombs. He was forced to apologize after referring to a banking lobbyist as a "K Street whore"; he said Florida Gov. Rick Scott would have "blood on his hands" if he did not implement some parts of the health-care plan; and he accused Republicans of offering only the health-care proposal that sick people should "die quickly." 

He was roundly beaten by Republican Daniel Webster in 2010 but will return having won by a 25 point margin in a redrawn district. 

Cable news bookers, start your engines. 

Four House Republicans have been stripped of their committee seats after it was determined by the Republican conference that they were "not team players," a GOP leadership aide told NBC News. 

The decision made Monday during a meeting of the Republican Steering Committee strips Reps. David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Walter Jones (R-NC) of their seats on the Financial Services Committee, and Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) of their seats on the House Budget Committee. 

The decision to take the committee seats away from Schweikert, Amash and Huelskamp has transformed into a mini-battle between conservatives and the Republican leadership establishment, with Schweikert's office saying his removal was a result of his "voting based on principle." 

"This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle. That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee," Schweikert's Communications Director Rachel Semmel told NBC News in a statement, "We are obviously disappointed that Leadership chose to take this course, but Rep. Schweikert remains committed to fighting for the conservative principles that brought him here." 

Reps Amash and Huelskamp caught flak from Republican leadership after they voted against the Republican budget during a vote to move the bill from the Budget Committee to a full vote of the House. As a result the bill made it through committee by only one vote.

When the Republican budget was voted on by the full House, Amash, Huelskamp and Jones were among a small group of Republicans who voted against it, saying it did not go far enough to cut the federal deficit.

House Republican leadership aides say the assertion by Schweikert's office that the move is a reflection of his voting record is "absurd."

"These guys are clearly not team players. This isn't about ideology; this is about how you treat the people on your team," a GOP leadership aide told NBC News, "Paul Ryan is one of the most conservative-principled members of our conference, and he kept his committee assignment."

Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), responded by saying, "The Steering Committee makes decisions based on a range of factors."

Schweikert is known for ruffling feathers within the Republican conference.  In July, Schweikert was removed from the GOP "Whip team," which is responsible for gathering votes to pass bills, because he voted against a bill he was telling members to vote for, according to a Politico report.

The fight has spilled outside of Capitol Hill, with the conservative group Club for Growth calling the move "a consequence of their principled stands on behalf of pro-growth policies, often bringing them in conflict with the leadership of their own party."

"Congressmen Schweikert, Huelskamp, and Amash are now free of the last remnants of establishment leverage against them," Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said in a statement. "We expect that these three defenders of economic freedom will become even bolder in their efforts to defend the taxpayers against the big spenders in both parties."

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.