GINGRICH: “Newt Gingrich's campaign is laying off a third of its paid staff, replacing its campaign manager, and lightening the campaign schedule as he continues with poor finishes in elections and is receiving little incoming money for his campaign,” NBC’s Alex Moe reports.

Politico was the first news organization to report that development.

The New York Daily News calls Gingrich cutting staff a “last-ditch effort.”

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond on the move: "We are not going to cede to Mitt Romney's strategy to take the party down." (h/t: GOP 12).

PAUL: Remember him? The New York Times asks: “Whatever happened to Ron Paul? He came in second in the New Hampshire primary. He has raised more money than any Republican candidate except for Mitt Romney. His campaign rallies still draw thousands of fervent supporters, far more than any of his rivals’. College students give him rock-star treatment, and he is planning rallies at 30 campuses over two months. But turn those strengths into a candidacy with a real shot at the Republican presidential nomination? It never happened.”

ROMNEY: “Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama by 19 points in basic popularity as the 2012 presidential contest inches closer to the main event, with a record 50 percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll now rating Romney unfavorably overall,” ABC says. “Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received.”

A Franklin and Marshall poll, though, shows Romney down just 2 points in the Pennsylvania primary now to Santorum, 30%-28%. GOP 12 notes, “Romney has shaved off 13% of Rick Santorum's lead in PA in one month.”

On The Tonight Show, Romney derided Santorum as a “press secretary.”

Romney also had this health-care exchange with Leno: "People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance," Romney said, describing his vision for health care if the Affordable Care Act were to be struck down or repealed.

"Suppose they haven't been insured," Leno countered.

"If they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, ‘Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered,’" Romney responded.

But when Leno pushed back, telling Romney he had friends who had worked in the auto industry who had never had insurance before and now were able to get coverage, Romney seemed to soften his stance somewhat.

"We'll look at a circumstance where someone is ill and hasn't been insured so far, but people who have the chance to be insured – if you are working in the auto business for instance, the companies carry insurance, they insure their employees, you look at the circumstances that exist – but people who have done their best to get insured are going to be able to be covered," Romney said. "But you don't want everyone saying, ‘I am going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance.’ That doesn't make sense. But you get defined rules and get people in who are playing by the rules."

Politico: “At Mitt Romney’s proposed California beach house, the cars will have their own separate elevator.” (Here’s how car elevators work.)

Norm Ornstein writes that Paul Ryan’s plan matters even if it doesn’t go anywhere now, because it’s close to being official GOP policy, since Romney’s embraced it.

It was a tough day in court for the mandate and the administration. “The justices’ probing questions during the second day of hearings over the constitutionality of Obama’s signature health care overhaul served to jolt the law’s supporters from any certitude that the court would find the requirement to have health insurance does not trample on individual rights,” the Boston Globe writes.

If the health law’s struck down, it’s because, in part, of the 2004 election, the Boston Globe’s Johnson writes. “In 2004, Senator John Kerry was among those presidential candidates who made the Supreme Court’s balance a part of his closing campaign argument. Then-incumbent President George W. Bush did, too. … Bush ended up making his only two court nominations after his reelection victory.”

The New York Daily News: “Obamacare takes Supreme Court beating as justices ask hard questions about requirement to buy insurance.”

Roll Call: “Skeptical questioning of the individual mandate at the heart of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul by the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy in particular, raised the hopes of top Republicans on Tuesday that the court will overturn the law.”

On this third day of Supreme Court arguments, today could be key, The Hill notes, as the court will focus on whether the health law and the individual mandate can be separated. “Severability could be key to the court’s ultimate decision. The debate might see a higher profile after Tuesday’s session, when the court’s potential swing votes indicated that they’re skeptical the insurance mandate is constitutional,” The Hill notes.

“A new Quinnipiac poll finds President Obama leading Mitt Romney in three crucial swing states,” Political Wire writes. “Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 42%; Ohio: Obama 47%, Romney 41%; Pennsylvania: Obama 45%, Romney 42%.”

McCain and former Sen. Feingold want campaign finance back in the spotlight.

The Hill: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted there would be ‘major scandals’ as a result of the rise of super-PACs thanks to the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court.”

FLORIDA: The New York Times: “Florida, which is expected to be a vital swing state once again in this year’s presidential election, is enrolling fewer new voters than it did four years ago as prominent civic organizations have suspended registration drives because of what they describe as onerous restrictions imposed last year by Republican state officials.”

MASSACHUSETTS: “In a surprising move, US Senator Scott Brown has transferred out of the Massachusetts Army National Guard to a unit in Maryland, allowing him to work in a major position at the National Guard’s Pentagon office,” the Boston Globe reports.

DELAVAN LAKE, Wisc. -- Despite news of a dramatic cutback in Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign staff, Rick Santorum is still refusing to call for the former House Speaker to leave the race.

"I think it is time for all the Republican candidates to coalesce behind me. You know, let's just have a conservative nominee to take on Barack Obama. Until that time happens, I'm not going to call on anyone to get out," Santorum said Tuesday night.

The former Pennsylvania senator spent the day campaigning through Wisconsin.  As he greeted patrons at restaurant here during his last stop, reporters told him of the reports that Gingrich had cut a third of his paid staff, including his campaign manager.  The news was met with a wince and head shake.

"One of the things I was told very early on in presidential politics is that you run for president as long as the money hangs on," said Santorum.  "Obviously, financially, it's tough. I can certainly understand that. So, I don't know what his plans are. As I've said before, were going to run the race irrespective of who's in and who's out."

Santorum said his campaign has not reached out to Gingrich, but that they "exchanged pleasantries" when they both met with the same group of reporters in Washington, DC on Monday.

Though Santorum has continually refused to call on Gingrich to leave the race, both he and senior staffers have blamed the waning GOP candidate for cutting into his vote totals and preventing a serious challenge to frontrunner Mitt Romney. Senior strategist John  Brabender has in the past openly welcomed Gingrich to be a top voice for Santorum's campaign and has also said they would like to hire his staffers.

But even as a contender fades away, the road continues to be a tough one for Santorum.  Polls show him struggling in the Badger State, where he is being heavily outspent.

He'll spend the majority of the time between now and Tuesday's primary in Wisconsin.

WASHINGTON, DC — Newt Gingrich's campaign is laying off a third of its paid staff, replacing its campaign manager, and lightening the campaign schedule as he continues with poor finishes in elections and is receiving little incoming money for his campaign.

“The campaign is being redesigned to focus on Tampa,” campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond told NBC News.

News of the cutbacks were first reported by Politico Tuesday evening. 

Michael Krull, an Iowan and college friend of Gingrich’s wife, Callista, who took over as campaign manager shortly after most of Gingrich’s original staff ditched him last summer, agreed to resign his position last weekend. Now, Vince Haley, the current deputy campaign manager and policy director, will assume the role.

Hammond refused to comment on what other staff were let go, saying “he will not discuss personnel matters.”

Gingrich’s campaign has been struggling to stay afloat financially for several weeks — posting slightly more debt than cash on hand in the last FEC filing for February. The former House Speaker, though, continues to promise he will go all the way to the Republican convention in Tampa this August unless another candidate obtains all 1,144 delegates beforehand.

Asked earlier today while campaigning in Maryland if he realistically has enough money to last him until the summer, Gingrich said he does.

“The money is very tight obviously,” he told reporters outside the state house.

The speaker even alluded to this apparent staff shake up, as well.

When asked by reporter in Annapolis this morning if he was asking his staff to take pay cuts, Gingrich said: “Well we're working through what it is going to take to get there [to the convention] and I think probably Joe DeSantis or R.C. will have something to say about that in the next day or two.”

Gingrich typically holds anywhere from three to five public campaign events a day but on Wednesday, Gingrich only has one public event scheduled in Washington, D.C. This trend will continue for the campaign as they begin to lighten the number of events.

Communications director Joe DeSantis tells NBC News as far as cutting back travel, “You will see Newt spend longer stretches of time in key states rather than bouncing from state to state.”

The speaker was originally scheduled to spend Wednesday in North Carolina but then cancelled the trip just yesterday.

These shakeups will undoubtedly increase speculation and calls for Gingrich to exit the GOP race. He has only won two states — his home state of Georgia and South Carolina — and is trailing both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the delegate count.

A majority of Republicans said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul should end their presidential campaigns, according to new survey data released Tuesday.

Sixty percent of Republicans said that it's time for Gingrich to leave the race, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll. Sixty-one percent said the same for Paul.

Gingrich has struggled to win any caucuses or primaries beyond the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary and the Super Tuesday primary in Georgia, the state where he was elected as a representative to Congress. He's vowed, though, to fight on with his campaign through the August Republican convention, though the former speaker acknowledged Tuesday that his campaign's finances were tight.

Paul, despite a vaunted fundraising operation and an enthusiastic corps of volunteers, hasn't scored a single victory and has faded from the campaign trail.

By contrast, a majority of Republicans -- 59 percent -- said that Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who's emerged as the chief conservative alternative to frontrunner Mitt Romney this primary cycle, should stay in the race.

The poll, conducted March 24-25, has a 4.5 percent margin of error for the subsample of Republicans.

For the most part, bloggers agreed that Day 2 of the Supreme Court's oral arguments over the federal health-care law represented -- at the very least -- a setback for the Obama administration.

SCOTUS Blog's Lyle Denniston, a reporter who has covered the Supreme Court for 50 years, wrote:

“If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone.  That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.

Left-leaning Steve Benen, a writer for the Rachel Maddow blog, says “court watchers look to these arguments for hints, but there are no guarantees that justices who appeared to be leaning in one direction or another will necessarily rule that way.” He notes that a few reporters, who heard the Supreme Court hearing, agreed on some points:

“* The mandate has at least four votes (Ginsburg, Breyer*, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
* Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who argued the case for the government, was not at the top of his game today, and the word "choke" is being bandied about quite a bit.
* Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General who argued against the health care, was excellent.
* The two votes to watch are Roberts and Kennedy. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito do not appear to be in play, despite all of Scalia's previous opinions on Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
* The liberal justices were far more effective than Verrilli in making compelling arguments in defense of the law.”

Adam Serwer, a reporter at Mother Jones, called the second day of orals hearings a “disaster.

“Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism's biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy...

If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli's performance, not because of it.”

Right-leaning Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post sums it up: “To put it bluntly, it was a rotten day for Obamacare, but more importantly, also for the left, which tends to assume that legislation it likes must be constitutional.

“In perhaps the most telling moment, Kennedy said that allowing Congress to compel purchase of health care “changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.” That, in a nutshell, is the challengers’ argument.”

The blogosphere is abuzz with the story that broke last night, when the Human Rights Campaign released internal memos from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest and most visible anti-same sex-marriage group, calling for the use of a racial wedge strategy to fight campaigns for marriage equality.

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies,” one of the NOM memos says.

“The documents, marked “confidential,” were unsealed yesterday afternoon in Maine by court order, as part of that state’s ongoing ethics investigation into NOM’s campaign finances.

The memo spells out specific steps to enact, including:

Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

Here is an excerpt on NOM’s Hispanic strategy:

"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."

NOM also spells out its plans for the 2012 presidential election:

"From a political angle," the NOM document says, "this strategy will require electing a pro-marriage President in 2012." Strategies for defeating, ("sideswiping," as the document calls it) President Obama include "expose Obama as a social radical," and "raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level."

NOM is a 501(c)3 and cannot endorse presidential candidates, but the former chairwoman of NOM’s board, Maggie Gallagher, endorsed Santorum in January.

Public opinion has moved considerably in the three years since the memos were drafted. The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (conducted Feb. 29 through March 3) shows a plurality favors same-sex marriage -- 49 percent say so versus 40 percent who oppose. That's a reversal from 41-49 percent in October 2009.

Among African Americans, a majority (50 percent) said they were in favor (41 were opposed). That's a big change from October 2009, when just a third (32 percent) were in favor and a majority (53 percent) were opposed. Among Hispanics, in the most recent poll, 55 percent said they were in favor, 30 percent said they were against. That's also a change from October 2009, when the margin was tighter (45-40 favor to oppose).

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign -- which supports efforts to legalize same-sex marriage -- criticized NOM. “Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” Solmonese said in a statement.

NOM posted a statement on its website today, saying it is "proud of [its] strong record on minority partnerships." 

It added: “Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”

NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this report.

ANNAPOLIS, MD -- While vowing to stay in the race until the Republican convention, Newt Gingrich admitted Tuesday morning that his campaign “money is very tight” and they are going to have to run a tight ship.

“I have the money to keep going,” Gingrich told reporters outside the Maryland statehouse. “We’re working through what it is going to take to get” to the convention.

The former House speaker, who also visited a famous local diner -- Chick and Ruth’s -- would not say whether he would need to lay off or cut staffers' pay in order to make it to Tampa in August. He did, however, turn down the notion that he cancelled his trip to North Carolina Wednesday for financial reasons.

“The only reason we cancelled North Carolina was to do things in Washington. We had an opportunity to do a couple things in Washington tomorrow and the Washington primary’s next Tuesday, and so that’s why we stayed in Washington,” he said.

The Gingrich campaign also began charging attendees at public events $50 to take a formal picture with the speaker that would be posted on their website -- something that only happened at fundraisers in the past.

The basic message being pushed today while campaigning in Maryland is that the race is far from over in Gingrich’s eyes. Maryland holds its primary on April 3.

“Gov. Romney is the frontrunner but is a long way from a majority,” Gingrich told reporters and promised to throw his support behind the former Massachusetts Governor if he becomes the party’s nominee.

“If he does get -- by the time Utah votes on June 26 -- a majority, I will support him and will be delighted to do everything I can to help defeat Barack Obama,” he said. “If, however, we get to June 26 and Gov. Romney doesn’t have a majority, I think we'll have one of the most interesting conventions in American history.”

The speaker heads to Maryland’s Eastern Shore Tuesday afternoon to speak to students at Salisbury University.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took a slight dig Tuesday at Mitt Romney for criticizing President Obama while the president was out of the country.

Boehner suggested it was inappropriate for Romney, the front-running GOP presidential contender, to take aim at Obama's exchange with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, when Obama signaled to his outgoing Russian counterpart after a meeting in South Korea that he would have more "flexibility" to negotiate on missile defense after this fall's elections.

"Clearly while the president is overseas, he's at a conference and while the president is overseas I think it's appropriate that people not be critical of him or our country," Boehner said in response to a question from NBC News about whether he agreed with Romney's assessment that Russia is the "number one geopolitical foe" of the United States.

Romney was quick to seize Monday on Obama's comments to Medvedev.

“Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage, and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very, very troubling, very alarming," the former Massachusetts governor said. "I'm very, very concerned."

GOP aides told NBC News that Boehner has long adhered to the principle that criticism of the president stops at the border’s edge while he’s abroad.

The speaker's office did flag a tweet for reporters on Monday, though, in which Boehner said he looked forward to hearing what Obama meant by the "flexibility" comment upon his return to the U.S.

In March of 2011, Boehner waited until Obama returned from Brazil before sending him a letter that was critical of his foreign policy in Libya.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images

People line up to after receiving tickets to view arguments at the US Supreme Court March 27, 2012 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court dives into the heart of President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law Tuesday, taking up its most divisive requirement -- that Americans maintain insurance or be fined.

The Main Event: Today’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court, beginning at 10:00 am ET, tackle the constitutionality of the individual mandate… And there’s plenty of irony (and even hypocrisy) on this issue… Obama’s Flex A Sketch comment and the truth it reveals in politics: It’s easier to get things done in a non-election year… Lesson to Romney: If you’re going to seize on a gaffe, don’t commit one yourself… And don’t go too far… If a now-irrelevant candidate falls in the forest and no one hears it… And Team Romney holds a nearly 10-to-1 advertising advantage over Santorum in Wisconsin.

*** The Main Event: Yesterday’s oral arguments were simply the opening act in the Supreme Court’s consideration of President Obama’s signature health-care law. But today’s discussion -- over whether or not the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is constitutional -- is the main event. And there’s plenty of irony (and even hypocrisy) on this issue. After all, it was then-candidate Barack Obama who railed against the individual mandate, which was supported by Hillary Clinton. What’s more, the individual mandate was once a conservative-leaning idea (championed by the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and, yes, Mitt Romney). The final bit of irony: Only a small percentage of the public would even be subject to the individual mandate, if it’s found to be constitutional. A new Urban Institute study finds, per Huffington Post, that 98% of Americans “would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.” So there you have it, folks: The central issue before the Supreme Court was once opposed by Obama, supported by conservatives and Republicans, and won’t even affect most Americans.

Poll: How do you interpret the Consitution?

*** Flex A Sketch: The White House was nervous enough about the (over?) reaction to the hot-mic conversation to take a question from the press to try and correct the record a tad. “I don’t think it’s any surprise that you can’t start [missile-defense negotiations] a few months before a presidential and congressional election,” he said. Indeed, just like the Etch A Sketch comment revealed a fairly non-controversial truth about politics (presidential candidates always try to move back to the center in a general election), President Obama’s hot-mic moment yesterday contained an iron-clad fact (a non-election year and a second term give you more flexibility to get things done). Now while every president believes a second term gives them more flexibility, recent history -- whether it was Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush -- teaches us that second terms aren’t all that easy. One other thing about Obama’s hot-mic comment to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev (“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space… This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility”): Wasn’t it simply a delay tactic with the Russians? Translation: “Hey guys, I hear you on this issue, but just give me some time and I’ll get back with you.” How many of you readers out there have used some near-term event as a delay tactic to put off a deadline or a conversation?

*** If you’re going to seize on a gaffe, don’t commit one yourself… : President Obama’s “hot mic” remark yesterday received plenty of attention, but it was Mitt Romney’s response to it that might have been just as problematic -- if not more so. First, he accidentally said that Iran “must have a nuclear weapon.” Romney said in California, per NBC’s Garrett Haake: "There's no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people and not telling us what he's intending to do with regards to our missile defense system -- with regards to our military might and with regards to our commitment to Israel; and with regards to our absolute conviction that Iran must have a nuclear weapon." OK, he obviously meant that Iran must NOT have a nuclear weapon. But then, later on CNN, Romney called Russia “our No. 1 geopolitical foe.” And that time-warp statement, which was true 25 to 30 years ago but is no longer the case, allowed Democrats to punch back. The DNC released this statement from former Ambassador and Congressman Tim Roemer (D): “Today, Gov. Romney said that Russia is without question our nation’s number one geopolitical foe.  Does Mitt Romney really believe that Russia … is a bigger threat to the U.S. today than a nuclear-armed Iran or al-Qaeda?”

*** … and don’t go too far:  Also, just like during Etch A Sketch (where we saw both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich going over the top and acting desperate in the process), Romney appeared to take Obama’s hot-mic remark a bit too far. Instead of having fun with it, he made the hot-mic comment seem like a nefarious and sinister plot. It’s yet another reminder that Romney isn’t the world’s most nimble political candidate. The hot-mic remark was a fastball down the middle -- to demonstrate some pop in his bat -- and Romney hit a grounder to third. For what it's worth, the Romney press shop seems to be seizing the opportunity better than the candidate himself. By the way, Medvedev took this shot at Romney: "I would recommend all U.S. presidential candidates ... to do two things. First, when phrasing their position, one needs to use one's head, one's good reason, which would not do harm to a presidential candidate. Also, (one needs to) look at his watch: we are in 2012 and not the mid-1970s."

*** If a now-irrelevant candidate falls in the forest and no one hears it… : In today’s New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni mentions that it’s time for a particular presidential candidate to get out of the race. This candidate, Bruni writes, failed to pick up a single delegate in Illinois and Louisiana. And this candidate, Bruni adds, is fueled only by over-the-top rhetoric and a “ludicrous guarantee of $2.50-a-gallon gasoline.” Who is this candidate? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. And it raises an interesting question: If this candidate falls in the forest and no one is bothering to listen, did it really happen?

*** Team Romney’s 10-to-1 advertising edge in Wisconsin: Wisconsin’s primary is exactly a week from today, and Team Romney (campaign and Super PAC) have nearly a 10-to-1 advertising advantage over Santorum in the state, $3.1 million to $340,000, according to data from Smart Media Group. In Michigan, the ratio was about 2-to-1; in Illinois, it was nearly 7-to-1; and now it’s almost 10-to-1 in Wisconsin.

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Romney remains in California, appearing  on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and fundraising in Stockton, Irvine, and Los Angeles… Gingrich attends an event in Annapolis, MD… And Santorum campaigns in Wisconsin, making stops in Beaver Dam, Racine, and Janesville.

Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 7 days
Countdown to Election Day: 224 days

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 “Daily Rundown” line-up: Preparing for today's arguments with NBC's Pete Williams, American University's Steve Wermeil and Politico's Josh Gerstein... Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) on Hiring Our Heroes... More 2012 news with Democratic strategist/NBCLatino.com's Alicia Menendez and Republkican strategist Rob Johnson, the former campaign manager for both Gingrich and Perry.

*** Tuesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, Politico’s Jonathan Allen, Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel, Florida State Sen. Gary Siplin (D), TheGrio.com managing editor Joy-Ann Reid, Dem Strategist Krystal Ball, GOP Strategist Rich Galen, and Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock.

*** Tuesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Rep. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands), Bob Shrum, Chip Saltsman, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), The National Urban League’s Marc Morial, Santorum strategist John Brabender, and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden.

*** Tuesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the Daily Beast’s Patricia Murphy, the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, Time’s Rana Foroohar, NBC News Chief Legal Correspondent Savannah Guthrie, and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

*** Tuesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell (anchoring from Havana, Cuba) interviews the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, NBC’s Chuck Todd, NBC’s Pete Williams, NBC’s Mark Potter, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, NBC’s Ron Allen and Gail Reed, International Director of Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba.

*** Tuesday’s “News Nations with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews NBC’s Pete Williams, Doug Kendall from the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Politico’s Josh Gerstein.

GINGRICH: He’s charging $50 a photo and he’s “lost his last embedded print reporters," reporters on the trail confirm to Politico, Political Wire writes. "The last two print reporters covering Gingrich full-time on the trail -- from Politico and the Atlanta Journal Constitution -- pulled out on Friday. The Associated Press pulled its embed after Tuesday's Illinois primary."

ROMNEY: Romney’s drawing fire for branding Russia the U.S.’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Russia’s Medvedev said Romney’s comments “smells of Hollywood” and is stuck in another time. "Regarding ideological clichés, every time this or that side uses phrases like 'enemy number one', this always alarms me, this smells of Hollywood and certain times (of the past)," Medvedev said at the end of a nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, per Reuters. "I would recommend all U.S. presidential candidates ... to do two things. First, when phrasing their position one needs to use one's head, one's good reason, which would not do harm to a presidential candidate. Also, (one needs to) look at his watch: we are in 2012 and not the mid-1970s."

Time’s Michael Crowley notes that Romney opened his campaign “with an argument heavy on foreign policy,” including a book called, “No Apology.” Crowley notes: It wasn’t until the recovery sputtered and Obama scored a string of foreign policy successes that Romney adopted a monomaniacal focus on the jobs picture. But some Republicans remain convinced that they can score points against Obama on foreign policy.” Crowley calls Romney’s “surprisingly harsh assessment of Russia” “a perhaps defensible position when you consider questions like U.N. Security Council vetoes, but still a tough one to square with his past remarks about Iran. (For example: ‘Right now, the greatest danger that America faces and the world faces is a nuclear Iran.’)”

And he points out: “There’s also something ironic about Romney leading this line of attack right now. Just days ago, after all, Romney was explaining for the Weekly Standard the virtue of keeping his policy positions vague until after an election, lest they be misrepresented and attacked unfairly in the heat of a campaign. (Among other things, Romney has left his plans for the war in Afghanistan extremely opaque). Perhaps Romney should show more sympathy for someone who may be following his own advice.”

The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison: “Whenever Romney speaks about foreign policy, I never rule out that it could be driven almost entirely by shameless opportunism. He sees an opening to criticize Obama on policies related to Russia, he takes it, and then predictably can’t avoid ridiculous hyperbole. However, it’s not just opportunism. This seems to reflect the bizarre, outdated hostility towards Russia that his earlier policy statements have conveyed. Sometimes the U.S. and Russia have divergent interests, and sometimes these interests may conflict, but that’s true of the U.S. and any other major power. His description of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” suggests that Romney has a very warped, anachronistic view of the threats to the United States. It’s a good bet that “our number one geopolitical foe” wouldn’t be permitting the resupply of our military in Central Asia through their territory and airspace. For some reason, Romney wants us to think that his Russia policy would be defined by Cold War-era paranoia.”

Is Romney getting a “health-care truce” from members of Congress, as Roll Call puts it? “Even as Rick Santorum steps up his attacks on Mitt Romney over health care, Senate Republicans are expressing confidence in the GOP presidential frontrunner and his ability to lead their party on this crucial issue come November,” the paper writes.

Rep Jeff Denham (R-CA) will endorse Mitt Romney tomorrow, according to a senior Romney aide, NBC’s Garrett Haake reports.

“Republican leaders covering much of the party’s ideological spectrum lined up behind front-runner Mitt Romney yesterday as part of an escalating effort to conclude the presidential primary battle and close ranks before the general election,” Bloomberg says. Al Cardenas of the American Conservative Union, Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Carly Fiorina all endorsed Romney. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller said he’d bet $100 on Romney being the nominee, though he didn’t endorse and says he doesn’t have plans to.

Bloomberg calls Restore Our Future a “killing machine”: “Since the contests began, Restore Our Future has spent $35 million on commercials attacking Santorum, a former Pennsylvania U.S. senator, and Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. House speaker, the two candidates who have come closest to knocking Romney out of front-runner status, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. The super-PAC has spent just $1.1 million promoting Romney, the data shows.”

(Romney was also pressed on CNN about the appropriateness of bringing his grandchildren to see The Hunger Games.)

SANTORUM: “Rick Santorum may be ranting about the potential for Mitt Romney to be an Etch-a-Sketch-in-Chief — but that doesn’t mean the conservative wouldn’t be his running mate,” The New York Daily News writes in response to Santorum telling CBN’s Brody: “Of course,” he’d be Romney’s VP if asked. “As I always say, this is the most important race in our country’s history. I’m going to do everything I can. I’m doing everything I can.”

Ouch. The New York Post dubs Santorum “Side-Show Rick.”

“The Obama administration today will defend a requirement that Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty -- the core of the president’s health care overhaul --in a Supreme Court case central to the Republican campaign to take over the White House,” Bloomberg writes. “A group of 26 states will say that Congress exceeded its authority in approving the mandate, as the justices hear their second of three days of arguments. The government, defending the president’s signature legislative victory, will contend that Congress can require people to buy insurance under its constitutional power to regulate the interstate health-care market.”

The New York Times says how the Supreme Court answers the constitutionality of the health law “depends in large part on how the justices decide to frame the core issue. The law’s challengers … present the central question as one of individual liberty. May the federal government, they ask, compel individuals not engaged in commerce to buy a product, here health insurance, from private companies?”

“The Obama administration, by contrast, urges the court to answer a different question. May Congress decide, in fashioning a comprehensive response to a national crisis in the health care market, to regulate how people pay for the health care they will almost inevitably need?”

The New Yorker’s Lizza looks at how Obama came to reverse his position on the mandate: “The President was pushed into adopting the individual mandate by two forces: Democrats in Congress and the C.B.O. When it became clear that it was untenable for Obama to keep his anti-mandate campaign position, his aides looked to Massachusetts….”

“President Barack Obama said he wasn’t “hiding the ball” from U.S. voters after microphones recorded him asking Russia for patience on missile defense negotiations until after the November election,” Bloomberg writes. “‘I don’t think it’s any surprise that you can’t start that a few months before a presidential and congressional election in the United States,’ Obama told reporters at a nuclear security summit in Seoul today, adding that a planned U.S. missile-defense system in Europe was one of the ‘primary points of friction’ between the two nations.”

The Boston Globe’s Johnson calls the open-mic moment Obama’s “own ‘Etch A Sketch’ moment.’” (The Globe also puts together a series of famous open-mic gaffes.)

Both the New York Daily News and New York Post saw it as Obama confident in having a “second term.”

Suffolk has Obama up over Romney 47%-37%.  A McClatchy-Marist poll, however, shows Obama up only by two points (46%-44%) over Romney.

“Several key White House offices were involved with the Obama administration’s messaging plans and other preparations as the collapse of the taxpayer-backed solar company Solyndra was imminent, newly released documents show,” The Hill writes. “The latest White House documents delivered to House Republicans on Friday again highlight the extent to which senior administration officials braced for the fallout as Solyndra – a company President Obama had personally visited – was about to go under.”

For the second time in a month, Vice President Biden will be in Iowa tomorrow. “Biden will speak at PCT Engineered Systems in Davenport about the administration’s efforts to improve the economy and the importance of manufacturing. It’s the third in a series of speeches Biden is delivering on the economy, which kicked off two weeks ago in Toledo, Ohio,” Roll Call notes.

“The most powerful prescriptions of a tough House GOP budget plan, like a dramatic restructuring of Medicare and big cuts to domestic programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and transportation appear destined to go back on the shelf almost as soon as the measure is passed this week,” the AP writes. “Instead, lawmakers will advance more pedestrian, politically safe goals: passing a routine round of annual spending bills as well as a special budget bill that would block automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies from taking effect in January.”

Conservatives have a budget of their own.

“Congressman Charles Rangel and his campaign have agreed to pay $23,000 stemming from his use of a rent-stabilized apartment in New York City as a campaign office,” AP writes.

The parents of Trayvon Martin are in DC today for a forum hosted by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on racial profiling and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

INDIANA: Stu Rothenberg: “[A]cknowledging that [Rep. Joe] Donnelly’s [D] chances of winning improve if [state Treasurer Richard] Mourdock [R] is his opponent is very different than saying that a Donnelly-Mourdock race would be a tossup. While it could well be competitive, Donnelly would be a clear underdog in the fall.”

Herman Cain’s PAC has a web video in which a rabbit is shot and killed to make a point about small business taxes. It was removed from YouTube by YouTube for a few hours yesterday, but is back up.

MAINE: It might be good to be (Angus) King, but pressure’s building for him to pick a caucus.

WISCONSIN: “Political yard signs and bumper stickers are plentiful in Wisconsin these days. They just don’t carry the names Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum,” Bloomberg writes. “Wisconsin Republicans are more focused on protecting their incumbent governor, Scott Walker, from recall than on the April 3 presidential primary in their state. Romney and Santorum have to convince party activists to focus some attention on them rather than solely on trying to protect Walker’s job in the recall election tentatively set for June 5, a vote triggered by anger over anti-union legislation the governor signed last year.”

Updated at 6:45p.m. ET Two years after a hard-fought victory, President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment -- the health care reform law -- seemed at risk of being struck down as the Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday.

“I think it’s very doubtful that court is going to find the health care law constitutional,” NBC’s Pete Williams reported after watching the two hours of oral argument before the high court. “I don’t see five votes to find the law constitutional.”

While it's difficult to know for certain after Tuesday's oral arguments, the conservative justices appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance.

Read the transcript of Tuesday's arguments here (.pdf)

Court observers caution that one shouldn't read too much into what any particular justice says during oral arguments; a justice will sometimes test out a theory and his or her comments don’t necessarily indicate which way he or she will decide.

But there were few encouraging hints for the Obama administration from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote on the court, or from any of the conservative justices.

“It’s risky to predict, but if I had to predict right today, I would say the law is in trouble,” Williams said.

The court is expected to hand down its ruling in June.

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, who was in the court room Tuesday for the arguments, said it was “very worrisome” for the Obama administration’s side of the case. 

The fate of the health care overhaul hinges on the issue the justices weighed during the argument Tuesday morning: does Congress have the power to force individuals to buy a product they otherwise would not have purchased?

Much of Tuesday’s battle focused on the extent of Congress’s reach under the power to regulate interstate commerce which the Constitution assigns to it.

Court signals it will decide constitutionality of insurance mandate

The four liberal members of the court seemed inclined to accept the administration’s s argument that Congress has ample power under the commerce clause to require uninsured people to join the insurance market. 

But Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing the case for the Obama administration, was “hunting for a fifth vote -- and it really wasn’t at all obvious where that might come from,” Goldstein said.

Verrilli tried to defend the requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance. “Everyone subject to this regulation is in -- or will be in -- the health care market,” Verrilli told the court. “They are just being regulated in advance. That's exactly the kind of thing that ought to be left to the judgment of Congress and the democratically accountable branches of government.”

But Verrilli came under constant pressure from the conservative justices.

Kennedy asked Verrilli at one point “Can you (the government) create commerce in order to regulate it?” Verrilli replied, “That's not what's going on here, Justice Kennedy, and we are not seeking to defend the law on that basis.”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Kennedy and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Kennedy told Verrilli at another point that the high court “must presume laws are constitutional. But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in ... a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

Justice Kennedy “seemed to have grave concerns,” Williams reported. It did not seem during the oral argument that Kennedy “found the justification that he needed” for the law, Williams said.

Read the transcript of Tuesday's arguments here (.pdf)

Chief Justice John Roberts told Verrilli that the Obama administration’s argument was built on the idea that people can’t control when they enter the market for health care or what they need when they enter that market.

“The same, it seems to me, would be true, say, for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever,” Roberts said. “You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will…. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?”

Listen to that exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Verrilli insisted that the two cases were different. 

In the same vein as Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito said the market for health care was no different from the market for burial. 
“I don't see the difference,” Alito said. “You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care, almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?”

Verrilli said “one big difference, Justice Alito, is you don't have the cost shifting to other market participants.” 

Listen to that exchange between Justice Alito and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Alito shot back, “Sure you do, because if you don't have money then the state is going to pay for it.” Or he added a family member is going to pay.

Making the most vigorous defense of the law was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said enactment of the health care law was akin to the creation of Social Security in 1935. 

Art Lien/NBC News

Paul Clement argues on behalf of the respondents of Florida.

“Congress, in the '30s, saw a real problem of people needing to have old age and survivor's insurance,” she said. “And yes, they did it through a tax, but they said everybody has got to be in it because if we don't have the healthy in it, there's not going to be the money to pay for the ones who become old or disabled or widowed. So they required everyone to contribute.” 

Ginsburg said Social Security caused “a big fuss about that in the beginning because a lot of people said -- maybe some people still do today -- I could do much better if the government left me alone. I'd go into the private market… I'd make a great investment, and they're forcing me to paying for this Social Security that I don't want; but, that's constitutional.”

If Congress wants to address the problem of the uninsured then, Ginsburg said, “Social Security is its model.”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Ginsburg and Paul Clement here (.wav)

Arguing on behalf of Florida and 25 other states was Paul Clement, the former solicitor general in the Bush administration, replied to Ginsburg that Congress could have raised taxes in order to pay for the uninsured -- instead of forcing people to buy insurance. “We could have a tax that's spread generally through everybody to raise the revenue to pay for that subsidy. That's the way we pay for most subsidies.”

Both conservative and liberal justices seemed to agree that Congress could require people who showed up at the doctor’s office for treatment for purchase insurance -- but the conservative justices seemed entirely unpersuaded that Congress could force people to buy insurance before they had any medical need.

Art Lien/NBC News

Attorney Michael Carvin represented the National Federation of Independent Business during the proceedings.

In what might be an encouraging signal for supporters of the health care law, Kennedy did display some concern about younger people who chose to go uninsured.  

In questioning attorney Michael Carvin, who was representing the National Federation of Independent Business, Kennedy raised the possibility that federal intervention might be justified.

“The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries,” Kennedy said. “That's my concern in the case.”

Carvin replied that “it would be perfectly fine” if Congress allowed insurers to gauge actuarial risk for young people, but the 2010 law prohibits them from buying “the only economically sensible product” -- catastrophic insurance.

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

HOCKESSIN, Del. -- Marking the first presidential candidate visit to Delaware this cycle, Newt Gingrich criticized President Obama’s comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as “alarming behavior.”

“This is a president who is amazingly destructive of American interests,” Gingrich said inside firehouse here. “He promises the Russian president as soon as he gets the election out of the way, he'll sell out the American missile defense system. They need to give him a little ‘space’ so he can be flexible right after the election.”

Gingrich, who spoke before a county-level Republican meeting on Monday evening, focused his roughly 40-minute speech on energy – a theme he hopes will carry him to a comeback in the race.

“I believe you can develop a Republican campaign that despite a billion dollars in Obama money, despite the bias of the elite media, despite the power of the incumbent presidency,” he said. “You can defeat him by picking your fights carefully and sticking to them.”

Monday’s event, held in a state that doesn’t vote for another three weeks, also seemed to signal a new phase in the campaign. Event attendees were allowed to take pictures with the candidate for $50 per photo. Before tonight, supporters took photos with Gingrich for free.

Charging for photos, in addition to news that the campaign canceled a trip to North Carolina, contributes to the narrative that Gingrich is struggling to stay afloat financially.  

But, Gingrich continues to vow to stay in the race even until Delaware votes on April 24th.

“It would mean a whole lot and I do think if we win Delaware it helps reset this campaign for the ninth or tenth time. This has been the wildest roller coaster I have ever seen,” Gingrich said, speaking to hundreds. “You can make history here in Delaware and both Callista and I will be back regularly for the next few weeks because we do need your help and we do want your support.”

The Senate voted Monday evening to move ahead with a Democratic-favored measure intended to repeal over $20 billion in tax breaks to the "Big Five" oil and gas companies.

Republicans joined with Democrats to advance the legislation, largely to position themselves for a broader fight with Democrats over gas prices and President Obama's energy policies -- a bipartisan vote on paper, if not in practice.

Ninety-two senators voted to begin debate on the measure; just four senators opposed it.

The "Repeal Big Oil Subsidies Act" sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) would curb tax breaks over the next 10 years for the five most profitable oil and gas companies -- BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. Menendez told reporters today the oil companies should not receive "wasteful taxpayer subsidies" on top of $1 trillion in profits.

"To me this is an easy choice, you're either on the side of big oil making record profits who certainly don't need the American taxpayers money' ... or you're on the side of the American driver and the American tax payer," Menendez told reporters.

Republicans joined Democrats in allowing the debate in hopes of framing the issue as a tax hike on energy prices. They've worked to pigeonhole the administration on this issue, as well as other energy initiatives like the Keystone XL pipeline.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) said an amendment could be offered to the Menendez legislation that would green light the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

“We want to address energy policy, we want to reduce gas prices…we think we have great solutions that the American people want” he said today after he voted to move the measure ahead.

Senate Democrats say the money saved from ending the tax breaks could go toward deficit reduction and be used to extend a series of expiring clean energy tax incentives.

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), a co-sponsor of the bill, called the the measure a "no-brainer" that would be a fundamental change in the nation's energy policy.

"The last thing we need is hard earned tax payer dollars in the form of subsidies," she said.

Menendez and Stabenow did not directly address how the legislation might impact gas prices; Republicans argue that rescinding the tax credits constitute a de facto tax hike on gas, the cost of which would be passed along to consumers.

"In response to record-high gas prices, Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes on the very people who produce it," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Monday. "Meanwhile, the president is blocking a pipeline that would decrease our dependence on Middle East oil and create thousands of American jobs."

Stabenow countered by recalling a hearing last year, where executives from the Big Five oil companies told the Senate Finance Committee that ending these tax breaks would not drive up the price of gas.

The Obama administration additionally backed the Senate bill on Monday, releasing a statement saying it fit with the president's energy strategy.

"There is no silver bullet when it comes to high gas prices, which is why the administration has consistently advocated for an 'all-of-the-above' approach when it comes to the nation's energy policy," the official statement of administration policy read. "By ending taxpayer subsidies to large oil companies and investing part of that money in a clean energy industry that has never been more promising, [the Senate bill] is consistent with that approach."

President Obama fired up a crowd at Ohio State University last Thursday by arguing that oil companies don't need any more help making profits.

"We have been subsidizing oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It is time to stop a taxpayer giveaway to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and start making investments in a clean energy industry that has never been more promising," he said. 

Republicans have in recent weeks waged an all-out blitz against President Barack Obama over the issue of gas prices, but the political benefit could prove fleeting, if and when fuel prices decline.

The steady rise in gas prices this spring provides Republicans with their most immediate example of the pocketbook fleecing suffered by voters, prompting the party to pounce. While some indicators point toward a tentative economic recovery -- which could be to the president’s political benefit -- the lost income associated with higher gas prices has led the GOP’s presidential contenders and leaders in Congress to complain that it’s Obama’s energy policies that have contributed to upped costs.

Jae C. Hong / AP

Gasoline pricesare now averaging more than $4 in six states plus Washington, D.C.

And from Republicans’ vantage point, Obama is on the ropes on the issue. They point to his energy tour last week, which included a stop at the southern portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline, as an example of the White House’s response to Republican pressure.

“The issue of gas prices is near the top now in terms of what we're hearing from people,” said Republican Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner. “President Obama wouldn't be taking credit for a pipeline he has nothing to do with unless he weren't feeling pressure that he's not doing enough.”

Republicans are also encouraged by recent poll numbers, which make them think gas prices are a winning issue.

A healthy majority of Americans -- 57 percent in a Gallup Poll this week -- support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, and four in 10 Americans called the energy situation in the U.S. is “very serious” right now.

But, for Republicans, living by the price of gas, might risk dying by the price of gas.

“We'll see how short-lived people's memories are,” said Oklahoma Rep. James Lankford, a Republican whose district is near the site in Cushing, Okla., that the president visited Thursday.

Lankford said he expected a drop in fuel prices this fall associated with the end of the summer driving season. But he also expressed concern that voters might grow accustomed to the higher gas prices, thereby allowing Obama to boast of the decline in prices before the election.

“I’m afraid we're going to set the same thing with gas prices where if we're down to $3.30 (a gallon), they're saying, hey, that's a good thing,” he said. “It does have the possibility of setting a new low and lulling people into that.”

There are other indications as to why Republicans might be taking a risk by betting the house on gas prices.

While voters call prices a serious issue, it ranks fourth -- at 8 percent -- among the most important priority among voters, according to the March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. By comparison, 18 percent of Americans called energy and the cost of gas their top issue -- making it second most important -- in August of 2008, when prices were similarly high, and then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was voicing the slogan, “Drill, baby, drill!”

The administration hasn’t shown a willingness to sit back and concede the issue, either.

"Every time prices start to go up -- especially during an election year -- politicians, they start dusting off their 3-point plan for $2.00 gas," Obama said Thursday in Columbus, Ohio, mocking his Republican opponents. "They head down to the gas station and they make sure a few cameras are following them, and then they tell you how we’re going to have cheap gas forever if you just vote for them.  And it has been the same script for 30 years -- the same thing.  It has been like a bad re-run."

And liberal groups have come to the president’s defense, too.

“I think that the thing Americans understand is that giving oil companies everything they want is not going to solve our energy policies,” said Navin Nayak, the senior vice president for campaigns at the League of Conservation Voters.

Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC, also went on offense by attacking Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney for raising fees on gas during his time as governor of Massachusetts.

For his part, Romney has called for the firing of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- whom he dubbed the “gas hike trio.”

But in an effort to broaden his message beyond the exact price of gas (unlike rival Newt Gingrich, who’s premised his campaign on the promise of lowering gas prices to $2.50 a gallon if elected), Romney said he couldn’t promise to bring prices down.

“I'm not predicting they're going to go down to $2 per gallon. I know there are some who think that's possible. Anything's possible in this world, but I think gasoline prices are going to be high,” he said Friday on New Orleans’ WWL radio. “However, they don't have to be as high as we're seeing under this president, if we develop our own energy resources and provide them to the refiners ... in this nation.”

Romney’s comment belies the point, though, that gas prices are unlikely to go back to the lows they were at when Obama took office. The financial crisis and recession had driven prices to a relative low, though Republicans still figure to use that price against Obama despite the economic recovery.

“I think we just maintain the message,” Lankford said. “The easiest way to say it is that it was $1.87 when he took office.”

WASHINGTON -- Rick Santorum used the start of oral arguments over President Obama's health-care law on Monday as an opportunity to pounce on his top rival for the Republican presidential nomination.

Standing outside the Supreme Court here, Santorum quickly pivoted from his opposition to the law being discussed in the stately courthouse behind him to an aggressive contrast with Mitt Romney.  The former Pennsylvania senator repeated one of his often-used critiques of Romney, calling him "uniquely disqualified" to face off against Obama because of the similarities between the law being debated today and one that Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts.

"There's one candidate who is uniquely disqualified to make the case,” Santorum said. “It's the reason I'm here, and he's not -- the reason that I talk about ‘ObamaCare’ and its impact on the economy and fundamental freedoms and Mitt Romney doesn't. It's because he can't, because he supported government-run health care as governor of Massachusetts."

Santorum used the backdrop of the Supreme Court's west entrance, where a security detail steered him through a crush of reporters hastily gathered for the press conference.  Advocates of the health law - who vastly outnumbered opponents outside the courthouse during the opening day of arguments – chanted, “Health care is a right!" at points during Santorum's address.

The setting was fitting for Santorum's frequently touted message.  On the campaign trail, he often calls the 2010 health-care law "the most important issue of the day." Repealing the law has been a top priority for Republican voters this primary, and today, Santorum called himself the only person able to do it.

"There's only one candidate that has a chance of winning the Republican nomination who can make this the central issue, that will be a winning issue for us to win the presidency back, and that's Rick Santorum,” Santorum said. “And unfortunately the worst person to make that case is Mitt Romney.”

The fiery rhetoric Santorum has used against his top rival has, at times, caused controversy on the stump. The most recent case happened on Sunday in Franksville, Wisc., when the GOP hopeful called Romney "the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama."

Pressed by reporters about the comments after the event, Santorum lashed out, accusing the media of "distorting" his words and calling questions about his remarks "bull----."

Asked about it today, Santorum did not apologize for the profanity.

"I don't regret taking on a New York Times reporter who was out of line," he said. The campaign is now using the confrontation as a fundraising appeal.

Santorum took a break from campaigning in Wisconsin to visit the nation's capitol, even though he is not on the ballot here for the April 3 primary. His efforts in the coming days will largely be in the Badger State, where he is struggling to keep pace with Romney. 

Romney and the pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future are outspending Santorum and allies nearly 10-to-1. Red, White, and Blue Fund today placed a $305,000 ad buy, but that brings the totals to $3 million for Romney to $340,000 for Santorum.

Santorum has remained dismissive of delegate math that has him far behind Romney. In response to a question about the electoral hurdles he faces, Santorum mocked top Romney surrogate John Sununu.

"I heard Governor Sununu say today that all of the significant people have said that Rick Santorum should get out of the race,” Santorum said. “Well, I guess we'll have to leave it to the insignificant voters of America in the remaining primaries to step forward and challenge the significant people who are speaking here in Washington, D.C.”

*** UPDATE *** Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams sends along this response:

"Senator Santorum is becoming increasingly shrill as his campaign hopes fade. It's important that all Republicans keep their focus on President Obama because if we want to repeal Obamacare we need to defeat him first. Obamacare is bad policy and bad law and when Mitt Romney is president he will get rid of it."

Updated 2:43 p.m. - SAN DIEGO, CA -- Mitt Romney assailed President Obama's comments to outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about increased "flexibility" after the election this fall.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev chat following the conclusion of their bilateral meeting March 26 at the Nuclear Security Summit Seoul, South Korea.

At a medical device company in San Diego, Romney called the president's comments -- captured Monday on an open microphone -- "an alarming and troubling development" as part of a longer wind-up about the importance of missile defense and standing by our allies.

“This weekend, the president happened to be somewhere where the microphone was left open. You may have heard that. It can be revealing, in this case, it was. He was speaking with Mr. Medvedev, of Russia. And he said, ‘This is my last election, I can be more flexible after the election is over,'" Romney started.

"Now when the president of the United States is speaking with the leader of Russia saying he can be more flexible after the election, that is an alarming and troubling development," Romney said. "There's no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people and not telling us what he's intending to do with regards to our missile defense system; with regards to our military might and with regards to our commitment to Israel; and with regards to our absolute conviction that Iran must have a nuclear weapon."

Obama's comments were captured at the very beginning of the photo opportunity after the the bilateral meeting between the president and Medvedev, when the two leaders were leaned over and speaking to each other.

RELATED: Obama's hot mic moment

"This is my last election," Obama was heard saying, "After my election I have more flexibility."

Medvedev responded that he would "transmit this information to Vladimir," meaning Vladimir Putin, the president-elect of Russia.

A Russian journalist's recording indicates the two leaders were talking about missile defense, a touchy area in U.S.-Russian relations.

Before Romney's remarks had concluded, President Obama's campaign pushed back at the former Massachusetts governor's criticism.

“Once again Governor Romney is undermining his credibility by distorting the President’s words," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement. "Governor Romney has been all over the map on the key foreign policy challenges facing our nation today, offering a lot of chest thumping and empty rhetoric with no concrete plans to enhance our security or strengthen our alliances."

Romney delivered his attack of the president during a speech that began with a critique of the President's health care law. Standing before a sign reading "Repeal and Replace Obamacare," Romney said there were "a lot of reasons not to like Obamacare," and outlined a number of his issues with the law, but stopped short of his usual direct call for the bill's repeal.

In his more than twenty minutes of remarks, Romney also never mentioned the Supreme Court case beginning today that could decide the law's fate well before the November election.

NBC's Domenico Montanaro discusses Day One of the health-care hearings at the Supreme Court, Rick Santorum’s Louisiana win, and President Obama’s hot mic moment