As Marco Rubio works to build his profile nationally, Americans who do have an opinion of the Florida senator have a slightly net-negative toward him.

A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesdayfound that 26 percent of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of the Florida Republican, versus 29 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of Rubio. Thirty-one percent of the poll’s respondents said they hadn’t heard of Rubio; 15 percent said they couldn’t rate him.

The poll was conducted Feb. 14-17, following Rubio’s nationally-televised response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.

The results suggest that Rubio has some work ahead of him to build his profile, and move voters’ opinion of him into net-positive territory, especially if he chooses to pursue the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

In addition to delivering the State of the Union response, Rubio has participated in bipartisan negotiations to craft a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He’s worked in recent weeks to sell that legislation to conservatives in particular. Rubio also took a high-profile, official trip to Israel and Jordan this week.

The poll found that independents held mixed views – 25 percent favorable, 24 percent unfavorable – toward Rubio.

The Florida senator fares much better among Republicans and Americans who agree with the Tea Party.

Forty-nine percent of Republicans say they have a favorable opinion toward Rubio, versus 18 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of him; nearly a third of Republicans, 32 percent, could not offer a rating of Rubio in the Pew poll. Those who agree with the Tea Party more broadly favor Rubio, 70 to 7 percent.

The Pew poll has a 3.7 percent margin of error for its total sample of all Americans. The subsample of Republicans has a 7.3 percent margin of error, and the subsample of independents has a 6.6 percent margin of error.

Fuming Arizona constituents fired criticism at Sen. John McCain over illegal immigration at town halls Tuesday.

“You said ‘build the dang fence’ – where’s the fence?” one constituent named Keith Smith demanded of McCain.

“He doesn’t want the American people to stand up and ask him the tough questions and hold his feet to the fire,” Smith told NBC affiliate KPNX.

McCain told the crowd that Americans would not support a move to arrest all illegal immigrants in the United States and deport them. He also said he wouldn’t support an effort to make people who had been in the United States illegally for decades to become guest workers because “we’re a Judeo-Christian principled nation,” drawing an angry response from some in the crowd.

McCain is a member of a bipartisan group of senators which is now working on drafting legislation akin to the bill which the Arizona senator supported in 2007, in partnership with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D- Mass. and others, to create a process for illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents of the United States. That effort collapsed mostly due to conservative Republican opposition.

When McCain ran for re-election in 2010, he survived a challenge from a conservative, J.D. Hayworth, in the Republican priamry. And in the general election he emphasized the need for greater efforts to stop illegal immigrants from slipping over the Mexican border – rather than his previous support for a legalization process.

What happens if the sequester sky doesn’t fall?... To count, we’re now on our 5^th and 6^th fiscal standoffs since 2011… Brace yourself for the Supreme Court to eliminate all federal campaign contribution limits… The more things change on immigration (see McCain and Rubio working on reform), the more some things stay the same (see yesterday’s McCain town halls)… On the gun debate and presidential leadership… Frank Fahrenkopf sounds off… Breaking down some of the RNC’s post-2012 recommendations… And all tied up in Virginia.

*** What happens if the sequester sky doesn’t fall?  Another day, another back-and-forth over the looming automatic budget cuts -- the so-called sequester -- set to commence on March 1. In an attempt to try and score some P.R. points (at least with conservatives), House Speaker John Boehner has penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed placing the blame for these upcoming cuts squarely on President Obama. “The president's sequester is the wrong way to reduce the deficit, but it is here to stay until Washington Democrats get serious about cutting spending… So, as the president's outrage about the sequester grows in coming days, Republicans have a simple response: Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?” Well, White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer has responded with a “setting the record straight” blog post pointing out 1) Obama does have a plan to replace the sequester cuts, 2) Boehner had boasted in the past that the sequester was leverage to extract entitlement cuts, and 3) the House GOP has yet to pass a plan in this Congress to replace the sequester. And today, Obama is conducting interviews with eight local TV stations (including some military-heavy markets like San Antonio and Honolulu) to pressure Republicans to come to an agreement to avoid the sequester. But here’s a question we have: Is the public listening anymore?

*** To count, we’re on our fifth and sixth fiscal standoff since 2011: After all, we’re now on our fifth fiscal standoff since Republicans took over the House in 2011 (the threatened government shutdown, the debt ceiling, the Super Committee, the fiscal cliff, and now the sequester). And later in March, we’ll see our sixth standoff (another battle over shutting down the government). Each time in the past, Democrats and Republicans have come to some sort of agreement that avoids the looming fiscal disaster but that also kicks the larger can down the road. So what happens if the sky doesn’t fall -- immediately -- after March 1? In fact, the New York Times notes that while these looming sequester spending cuts will have an impact on the economy, they’re unlikely to have an immediate effect. “Rather, they will ripple gradually across the federal government as agencies come to grips in the months ahead with across-the-board cuts to all their programs.” If that’s the case, does this kind of public campaign we’re seeing (Obama arguing that essential jobs will be lost, Republicans pinning the blame on the president) actually work? It’s something to chew on as both sides begin to wage a furious P.R. campaign before March 1. By the way, check out Wall Street -- record highs all over the place. Translation: Wall Street has stopped fearing Washington. They now only hear “posturing” when the two sides talk, and if Wall Street doesn’t believe the threats coming out of Washington, then the public might not be far behind.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio arrives to meet with reporters on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013.

*** Brace yourself for the Supreme Court to eliminate all campaign-contribution limits: As NBC’s Pete Williams reported yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to delve into the controversial issue of money and politics -- again. This time, the court agreed to take up a challenge brought by an Alabama man who claims it's unconstitutional to prevent him from giving more than $46,200 to candidates and $70,800 to PAC's and political committees, Williams notes. The Alabama man doesn’t challenge the limit on contributions to an individual candidate, but he does claim it's unconstitutional to prevent him from contributing to as many candidates as he wishes. What every political observer should brace for, especially after the Citizens United decision, is that the Supreme Court could potentially eliminate ALL federal contribution limits. Indeed, note that the Republican National Committee joined the Alabama man on this court challenge. And as NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports (more on this below), one of the RNC’s recommendations after the GOP’s losses in 2012 is giving the parties a bigger role in fundraising vs. outside groups – and one way to do this is to eliminate the contribution limits.

*** The more some things change, the more they stay the same: On the one hand, the politics behind achieving immigration reform haven’t been more promising as they are right now. Yesterday, we learned that President Obama called three of the four Republican senators working on a bipartisan effort to achieve comprehensive immigration (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio). And Rubio’s office issued an encouraging statement, especially after it had complained the Obama White House hadn’t sought its input on reform. "Sen. Rubio appreciated receiving President Obama's phone call to discuss immigration reform late tonight in Jerusalem," Rubio’s spokesman said. "The senator told the president that he feels good about the ongoing negotiations in the Senate." (Can’t help but wonder how much of this is both sides doing what they have to do on the theatrics front.) On the other hand, it appears that the politics also haven’t entirely changed since reform tanked in 2005-2007. Just see the reaction from McCain’s two town halls yesterday in Arizona. The AP: “Some audience members shouted out their disapproval [at McCain’s call for a legal path for illegal immigrants. “One man yelled that only guns would discourage illegal immigration. Another man complained that illegal immigrants should never be able to become citizens or vote. A third man said illegal immigrants were illiterate invaders who wanted free government benefits.”

*** On the gun debate and presidential leadership: While the Obama White House has taken sort of a backseat in the immigration debate -- at least for now -- to let Congress work its will, it’s striking to note the active role it has taken in the gun debate after Newtown. Ask yourself this question: Where would this issue be, even the chance at getting universal background checks, without the president putting his shoulder behind the issue. This is an example of why presidential leadership does matter in politics. The irony in all of this: Guns were never an issue Obama campaigned on during the 2012 election. Every two or three days, there’s a new gun event being pushed by the White House. Yesterday, it was the Biden Facebook townhall, which gave social media its quote of the day: If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun,” he said, per Roll Call.

*** Frank Fahrenkopf sounds off: Speaking of the 2012 election, don’t miss one of the old-guard Republican establishment figures -- former RNC Chair Frank Fahrenkopf -- sounding off on his party, Washington, and the media during a talk in Las Vegas. As Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston writes, Fahrenkopf “presented a blizzard of by-now familiar statistics of how Mitt Romney had his clock cleaned by President Obama among minorities and young people.” (“And I thought McCain’s campaign was the worst I’d seen in modern history,” Fahrenkopf said.) More: “Fahrenkopf said the GOP should take the position that the country needs ‘sensible, fair, immigration reform.’” And: “Fahrenkopf couldn’t resist a criticism of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s embrace of Obama during Hurricane Sandy, providing this cringe-worthy description: ‘He kissed him. He didn’t have to French-kiss him. I think he went overboard.’”

*** Breaking down some of the RNC’s recommendations after their 2012 losses: Meanwhile, NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports that Republican Party officials studying how to rebuild the party in the wake of 2012 losses are hoping to release their set of recommendations by mid-March -- and the list of fixes is already beginning to take shape. Some of these recommendations, per Hunt: 1) expanding the map and increasing voter contact; the party needs a plan that's not dissimilar to former DNC Chairman Howard Dean's 50-state strategy as it tries to expand the map beyond traditional red states; 2) changing campaign finance. The GOP team worries about how much new campaign finance law has weakened the national party structure, handing more power to outside groups on both sides of the aisle -- and giving a louder voice to both the left- and right-wing; and 3) limiting presidential primary debates.

*** All tied up in Virginia: Finally, turning to this year’s gubernatorial contest in Virginia, a new Quinnipiac poll finds the race is pretty much tied – whether or not GOP Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling decides to mount a third-party challenge. In a straight head-to-head match-up, the poll has Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli tied at 38% among registered Virginia voters. And in a three-way race, it’s McAuliffe at 34%, Cuccinelli at 31%, and Bolling at 13%. Folks, Bolling is polling at 13%, and he hasn’t even announced. If he gets any kind of serious financial support, he can become a real threat. Do NOT take this candidacy lightly. This is not some spoiler in the works. Democrats shouldn’t be rooting for Bolling to get in because they simply think he’ll split GOPers and indies with Cuccinelli. Bolling is positioning himself to the left of some of the state’s more mainstream GOPers, including Gov. Bob McDonnell.

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 “Daily Rundown” line-up: CNBC’s Becky Quick and Steve Liesman and The Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein join for a look at if what’s happening in Washington effects Wall Street… MSNBC’s S.E Cupp and John Goodwin the former chief of staff to Rep. Raul Labrador join to talk about young people and the GOP Party… plus our Gaggle with Time’s Nancy Gibbs, The New York Times’ Nick Confessore and New York One’s Errol Louis

*** Wednesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Jackie Kucinich and Felicia Sonmez. Jim Tankersley talks about whether Walmart's struggle should worry the rest of us. Ed Rendell and John Brabender discuss the evolving face of the GOP. Kelly Wallace and Lea Goldman join to talk women and the gun debate.  Dr. Rafael Yuste, a member of an elite group working on brain mapping for the White House will be on to discuss the project.

*** Wednesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on the sequester showdown. ..  Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) joins to talk about new NRA ads targeting democrats in the gun debate…  Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, joins to discuss a new $1M ad campaign in support of marriage equality…  Today’s Power Panel includes:  MSNBC Contributor Perry Bacon, Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis and Republican strategist Alice Stewart.

*** Wednesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include Deputy New York Mayor Howard Wolfson, Politico’s Maggie Haberman, Jared Bernstein, the Grio’s Joy Reid, and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein.

*** Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews former White House senior adviser David Axelrod, OMB Founding Director Alice Rivlin, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, former White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto, the New York Times’ David Sanger and The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza.

*** Wednesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews former Ambassador Nick Burns, the Boston Globe’s Bryan Bender, Dem strategist Chris Kofinis, and Michael Smerconish.

The Hill calls the fight over the sequester a “game of political chicken.” More: “Obama will hit the road again next week for campaign-style events at which he will argue Republicans are to blame for hurting the economy and national security if the cuts go through… Republicans, for their part, are equally confident it is Obama who will get the blame once the sequester is implemented on March 1. They agree the cuts will be harmful but find fault with Obama for signing the sequester into law and for having the idea in the first place.”

Roll Call calls Obama’s speech yesterday a “continuation of the White House strategy since winning tax rate hikes on the wealthy alongside permanent middle- class tax relief during the fiscal cliff deal.”

The Hill: “Continuing to hunt for a political advantage in the fight over the looming sequester, President Obama on Wednesday will conduct interviews with eight local television stations in an attempt to intensify pressure on congressional Republicans.”

USA Today calls it “lights, camera, sequester.”

“Budget cuts by the Army and Navy scheduled to take effect March 1 will force more than $26 billion in wage and spending reductions and prompt furloughs or layoffs for more than 450,000 people nationwide, according to documents obtained by USA TODAY.” More: “Hardest hit states by the Army cuts include Alabama, Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Among the least affected: Delaware, Wyoming, Montana and Rhode Island.”

Another USA Today piece on the consequences of the sequester: “Looming across-the-board federal spending cuts threaten to weaken the national criminal background check system for gun purchases, federal officials warn, even as lawmakers work to draft compromise legislation to expand and improve the background check system.”

Obama talked to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio yesterday, three of the four GOP senators working on immigration. The Hill called it “an effort to smooth the waters.”

Beth Reinhard: “Such public declarations largely amount to political posturing. Obama’s liberal base expects a quicker path to citizenship for illegal immigrants than what Rubio has outlined. Rubio risks his credibility with conservatives if he appears to be in cahoots with the president. With Rubio’s political identity hinging on his status as a leading Republican foil to the president -- exemplified by his delivery of the party’s official rebuttal to the State of the Union speech last month -- it’s hard to imagine these rivals coming together. But while some immigration reform advocates worry that ill will could doom a deal, they also point to the high stakes for both sides in courting the fast-growing Hispanic community that sealed Obama’s second term. In other words: Obama and Rubio may never be friends, but they could be frenemies.”

Vice President Biden in a Facebook chat with Parents magazine said people should buy shotguns and not assault weapons. “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun,” Biden said, per Roll Call. He told his wife: “If there’s ever a problem here, just walk out on the balcony, here, walk out, put that double barrel shotgun and just fire two blasts outside the house. … I promise you, whoever’s coming in is not going to — you don’t need an [assault rifle]. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun.”

“A call over the weekend ended a week of speculation that Russia had been snubbing the new secretary of State,” The Hill writes. “Russia's foreign minister finally returned Secretary of State John Kerry's phone call from last Monday over the weekend, the State Department said. Kerry had been trying to reach Sergei Lavrov ever since North Korea tested a nuclear device last Monday evening. The two finally connected over the weekend, ending a week of speculation that Russia had been snubbing the new secretary of State.”

Tiger Woods called it “pretty cool” golfing with Obama.

The Hill says the Pentagon is investigating the SEAL who shot bin Laden to see if any classified information was mentioned during his interview with a reporter.

“Republicans have decided that the sequester scheduled for March 1 — not a government-funding bill due at the end of March — is where they’ll make their stand on spending cuts,” The Hill writes. “After the bruising political battles of the last Congress, GOP leaders have decided the looming automatic spending cuts provide the best leverage to move President Obama to negotiate on costly entitlement programs.”

A new era… Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was just sworn in a month ago, has made waves with his loaded hearing questions and even accusing Chuck Hagel of being “cozy” with Iran. Now, some conservative are leaping to his defense. “Senator Ted Cruz came to Washington to advance conservative policies, not play by the same old rules that have relegated conservatives, and their ideas, to the back bench,” Michael Needham, president of the influential Heritage Action said.

Menendez watch: “Under investigation for alleged ethics lapses, Menendez traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan over the weekend for his first foreign trip since taking over as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee following John Kerry's confirmation as secretary of State,” The Hill writes. “The trip brought renewed unwelcome attention to his troubles at home after the official website of Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday published photos that purport to show Menendez and Karzai discussing the ‘fight against corruption.’”

How out of control has the Chuck Hagel opposition become? A Daily News reporter says he posed a sarcastic question to a GOP aide of whether Hagel took money from any groups like “Friends of Hamas,” an over-the-top, non-existent group, and the next thing he knew it was a headline on a conservative website.

National Journal says Jim Risch (R-ID) is the Senate’s “most conservative” member. Dick Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tom Udall (D-NM) tied for “most liberal.”

Frank Fahrenkopf, former RNC chairman and head of the Commission on Presidential Debates, lit into Mitt Romney’s campaign and Republicans for not understanding the country’s demographics and losing on voter turnout. “And I thought McCain’s campaign was the worst I’d seen in modern history,” he said, per Jon Ralston.

He also took a shot at debate moderator Candy Crowley, calling her selection a “mistake” and contended that media bias is real but the GOP has to “live with it.” He also called Michael Steele a “name that will live in infamy” for not fixing how primaries are run or limiting debates. Of Chris Christie’s embrace of Obama during Sandy: “He kissed him. He didn’t have to French-kiss him. I think he went overboard.”

“The National Rifle Association will launch a print advertising campaign targeting mostly Democratic senators up for re-election in 2014, according to sources close to the group,” Roll Call reports. “On Thursday, full-page ads are scheduled to run in local newspapers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina and West Virginia. They will be supplemented by digital advertising in these states and 10 others, including Alaska, Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire and South Dakota. Additionally, the group has scheduled full-page ads to run Feb. 25 in regional editions of USA Today, reaching parts of 15 states. The campaign is estimated to cost north of $375,000, sources said.”

“Who could bring together President Obama and Dick Cheney on the same side of an issue?” USA Today asks, “Supporters of gay marriage. The Respect for Marriage Coalition launched an ad Wednesday featuring comments from Obama and Cheney, who have clashed repeatedly on national security issues but back the idea of same-sex marriage. The ad also includes clips from former first lady Laura Bush and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell.”

Stu Rothenberg on the GOP’s internecine problems: “Ultimately, the Republican Party’s problems go back to its base voters, who participate in primaries and nominating conventions. Many of them are so blinded by their anger toward President Barack Obama, the national news media and their own party leaders that they are willing to nominate the most conservative candidate in a primary, no matter how limited his or her appeal in a general election. And for party strategists, there is no easy solution to that problem.”

ALASKA: Here we go again… “Joe Miller, the tea party favorite who was backed by Sarah Palin when he roiled GOP politics in the 2010 midterm elections, is seriously considering another bid at an Alaska Senate seat, a campaign that could prompt a bare-knuckled effort against a candidate pushed by the party establishment,” Politico writes.

ILLINOIS: The Chicago Tribune: “Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., and his wife, former Chicago Ald. Sandi Jackson, are expected to plead guilty to federal charges today, when more details may emerge about an alleged crime spree in which he is accused of spending more than $750,000 in campaign cash to buy luxury items, memorabilia and other goods. Attorneys familiar with public corruption investigations said the amount of campaign cash allegedly converted to personal use in this case is the largest of any that they can remember. Jackson Jr., who has been largely out of the public eye for eight months, is to appear in court at 9:30 a.m. Chicago time. His wife is to appear at 1:30 p.m. Chicago time.”

KENTUCKY: Mitch McConnell put out this video poking fun at Democrats’ search for a candidate to run against him.

NEBRASKA: “Sen. Mike Johanns’s (R-Neb.) retirement could open up another battleground in the fight between the establishment and grassroots factions of the Republican Party, with a deep bench of potential candidates likely to run in a state in which $1 million can go a long way,” The Hill writes. “At least one outside group that typically backs grassroots and Tea-Party-affiliated candidates — the Senate Conservatives Fund — is looking at the race as an opportunity in 2014.”

NEW JERSEY: Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) approval is at a record 74% in a Quinnipiac poll. He leads in a hypotchetical matchup against state Sen. Barbara Buono (D), the leading Democrat by a whopping 62-25%.

VIRGINIA: A Quinnipiac poll finds Terry McAuliffe (D) and state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) tied at 38-38%. With Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling in the race, McAuliffe gains a narrow advantage, 34-31% over Cucinelli; Bolling gets 13%.

Despite rumors that he might retire, signs are that Frank Wolf (R-VA) will run again, Roll Call reports.

WEST VIRGINIA: Democrats still don’t have a candidate for the Senate seat. Yesterday, Carte Goodwin (remember him???) turned down a run.

Sen. Marco Rubio really wants nothing to do with President Barack Obama's immigration backup plan.

Rubio's office on Tuesday released a statement insisting that the plan the Florida Republican is working on has "major differences" from the White House blueprint that was leaked to USA Today over the weekend. Spokesman Alex Conant pointed to a number of measures they say are missing from the White House plan: tying the a path to citizenship to border security, a new visa exit system and a plan to deal with future immigrants.

And Conant said no one in Rubio's office has met with the White House to talk immigration.

"President Obama and the White House staff are not working with Republicans on immigration reform. Senator Rubio’s office has never discussed immigration policy with anyone in the White House," Conant said.

On Tuesday, the White House insisted it was in fact working with lawmakers on the issue. Obama has said he wants the Senate to write a bipartisan immigration proposal, but that he'll release his own plan if that process drags.

"We have been in contact with everyone involved in this effort on Capitol Hill," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

Asked to clarify, Rubio's spokesman said the administration had sent agency officials to brief Senate staffers for the bipartisan group of eight senators who are working on immigration reform -- but insisted policy was not discussed.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

"They've never asked for our input. (And, frankly, we've never asked for theirs.)," Conant wrote in an email.
Senior administration officials said that staffers from the White House had attended at least 5 briefings with congressional staffers working on bipartisan reform. At different points, officials from relevant government agencies also briefed the staff group.

Some Republicans have suggested the White House's separate plan could help GOP supporters distance themselves from the president and highlight the compromises in a Senate plan. Rubio's office rejected that analysis.

"The White House has injected additional partisanship into an already difficult process, and raised fresh questions about the president’s seriousness about passing reform," Conant said.

President Barack Obama finally broke his silence on an issue of national importance Friday – he thinks it’s time to retire the penny.

The possible extinction of the one-cent coin was a featured economic question in a Google+ Hangout with the Commander in Chief last week as John Green, the co-creator of a popular YouTube channel, applied a little presidential peer pressure.

“Australia, Canada, New Zealand, many other countries have gotten rid of their pennies,” Green said. “Why haven’t we done it?”

“I gotta tell you, John, I don’t know,” Obama responded, adding, “Anytime we’re spending money on something people don’t actually use, that’s an example of things we should probably change.”

RELATED: Conservative thinkers: GOP should cut 'stale' policies loose

But why should anyone care? They’re pennies. Aren’t there more valuable things to worry about?

First, pennies actually cost more to make than they’re worth. In 2012, every penny cost 2.41 cents to make – more than twice their face value.

And as zinc and copper – materials used in minting the penny – have become costlier due, in part, to manufacturing shifts in China, which are likely to raise costs further.

Granted, the total cost of minting pennies was only $58 million last year – less than one-tenth of a percent of total federal spending in 2012 – but groups like Citizens to Retire the U.S. Penny have long been making the economic case for getting rid of the penny (plus, the group adds, fishing for pennies adds about 2 seconds to each cash transaction per day).

And the U.S. military has already decided they’re essentially useless; all Army and Air Force Exchange Service stores on bases round all cash purchases up or down to the nearest nickel.

With both parties looking for ways to cut government spending, it seems as though cutting penny production could be a relatively painless, if insignificant, place to start. But in the Google+ Hangout, Obama ceded that Washington has bigger fiscal fish to fry.

“The penny is an example of something that I need legislation for,” he said. “And, frankly, given all of the big issues that we have to deal with day-in/day-out, a lot of times it just doesn't -- you know, we're not able to get to it.”

There have actually been efforts to pass penny-banning legislation. Back in 2001, then-Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) introduced the “Legal Tender Modernization Act,” which would have made pennies obsolete by requiring retailers to round up or down to the nearest nickel on cash purchases.

That bill failed, and Kolbe’s second attempt in 2006, the “Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation (COIN) Act,” after zinc costs nearly doubled, met a similar fate.

But the president doesn’t need Congress to explore other, cheaper alternatives to zinc – the main metal in pennies. In fact, the administration’s 2013 budget encourages the Treasury to “explore, analyze, and approve new, less-expensive metals for all circulating coins like aluminum, iron and lead.”

It wouldn’t be the first time Abe Lincoln’s coin got a makeover. Back in 1982, the penny changed from 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc to 97.5 percent zinc and 2.5 percent copper.

(And lest so-called “penny hoarders” try to melt that valuable pre-1982 copper down, the Mint in 2006 prohibited the melting of pennies and nickels. It also made it a crime to carry more than $5 in one and five-cent coins out of the country).

Changes to the composition of pennies do have Congressional champions: Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers (R) introduced the “Cents and Sensibility Act” in December 2011, which would mandate that pennies were out of American steel (much of which comes from the Buckeye State) and dipped in copper. 

But these efforts will be met with some serious resistance from the zinc lobby (yes, there is one). The company Jarden Zinc, which creates “metal and zinc coinage,” according to its website, paid lobbyist Mark Weller $340,000 in 2012 to discuss issues related to “minting/money/gold standard” with members of Congress and the Mint, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Weller also represents the pro-penny group Americans for Common Cents, whose website warns of the risk of inflation that eliminating the penny would bring, and whose headquarters are on K Street, known for its many D.C. lobbyist offices. 

“Americans for Common Cents aims to inform and educate policymakers, consumers, and the media about the penny’s economic, cultural, and historical significance,” the group’s website reads.

The political power of the penny is likely another reason Obama hasn’t acted on getting rid of it. As far back as 2008, when he was still a candidate, the “penny lobby” appeared to mystify Obama.

Asked about it at a town hall in Pennsylvania, he said, “We have been trying to eliminate the penny for quite some time -- it always comes back,” joking, “I need to find out who is lobbying to keep the penny.”

This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:51 PM EST

Is there a sea change afoot among the conservative intelligentsia?

As the Republican Party wrestles with how to reinvent itself to appeal more broadly to an increasingly diverse electorate after its two-straight presidential losses, a handful of conservative thinkers are calling upon the GOP to cast off some of its most well-worn proposals and elements of the party’s identity.

These intellectual leaders are arguing that the GOP must embraces changes in policy. That’s significantly different than what the official organs of the Republican Party have said, which is that the party needn’t change its core policies and positions so much as frame them in a way that’s more appealing to more voters.

Take, for example, a post on Monday by Jim Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, who argued that Republicans should abandon their pursuit of a flat tax, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution or the gold standard – three ideas that have long found advocates on the right.

“Today, the top marginal tax rate is 40 percent, and inflation is 2 percent. Health-care spending and the debt have both risen by nearly 80 percent as a share of output. The average American is 37 years old,” wrote Pethokoukis on National Review Online. “Economics and demography require a reworking of the conservative policy portfolio. But center-right politicians in Washington keep offering same-old, same-old stale solutions.”

Recommended: Obama warns looming sequester would devastate economy

That’s a sentiment similar to the one voiced by Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review in an op-ed Sunday for the New York Times. Republicans, Ponnuru wrote, should be more willing to move beyond the policy prescriptions offered three decades ago by President Ronald Reagan.

"They slavishly adhere to the economic program that Reagan developed to meet the challenges of the late 1970s and early 1980s, ignoring the fact that he largely overcame those challenges, and now we have new ones," wrote Ponnuru.

Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, both veterans of the most recent Bush administration, argued in a new piece for Commentary magazine that the GOP should learn from the centrist examples of President Bill Clinton, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose election signaled a new era for the UK’s Labour Party. They argued that Republicans’ sweeping victories in the 2010 midterm elections were an “aberration” rather than a catalyzing moment for the GOP.

Gerson and Wehner prescribed a four-step process for the GOP: Republicans, they wrote, must first renew their focus “on the economic concerns of working-and middle-class Americans;” second, “welcome rising immigrant groups;” third, “express and demonstrate a commitment to the common good;” fourth, “engage vital social issues forthrightly but in a manner that is aspirational rather than alienating;” and fifth, “harness their policy views to the findings of science.”

They wrote that many of the existing Republican presidential frontrunners in 2016 are equipped to deliver that message.

But: “Their challenge is both to refine and relaunch the Republican message, to propose policies that symbolize values and cultural understanding, to reconnect with a middle America that looks different than it once did, and to confront old attitudes, not from time to time, but every day.”

This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:30 AM EST

President Barack Obama used his bully pulpit Tuesday to warn of calamitous consequences for the U.S. economy should the automatic spending cuts known as the “sequester” go into effect next Friday.

The president warned that the automatic cuts, totaling about $85 billion over the course of this year, would prompt job losses, weakened national security and canceled government services – among other consequences.

“So these cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” Obama said in a statement at the White House. “This is not an abstraction; people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.”

The speech featured no new, concrete proposal from the president detailing how he would prefer for Congress to replace the sequester.

Democrats in Congress released a plan last week that called for $55 billion in new revenues from closing tax loopholes and deductions, and additional cuts by $27.5 billion to each the defense and discretionary spending budgets over the course of the next decade.

Obama’s speech was otherwise spent reiterating points he’s made for the better part of the last two months. He said that any sequester replacement should be “balanced” – shorthand for a combination of new tax revenue and spending cuts – and Obama urged lawmakers to approve a shorter-term replacement for the automatic cuts if they couldn’t reach consensus on a broader package by the end-of-February deadline. 

Rather, the president, who was flanked by first-responders whose jobs Obama said would be threatened by the sequester, was making use of political optics and the presidential bully pulpit to pressure Congress to act. 

Still, the urgency appeared to have little effect on Republicans, who dismissed the president’s remarks as unserious about reaching a solution. 

"Once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

“Today's event at the White House proves once again that more than three months after the November election, President Obama still prefers campaign events to common sense, bipartisan action,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. 

Indeed, many Republicans have treated the sequester as a fait accompli; Congress is out of town this week, and lawmakers would only have a handful of days next week to act upon the sequester. Some Republicans have also argued that even if the sequester is replaced, its $85 billion in cuts should set a baseline for offsetting cuts in other areas of the budget. 

“I have to say, though, that so far, at least, the ideas that the Republicans have proposed asks nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations,” Obama said of the GOP proposal. “So the burden is all on first-responders or seniors or middle-class families. They doubled down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I've outlined.”

The president added, as if to drive home the point: “Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. It's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken, that's certainly not the position I've taken.”

This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:04 AM EST

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to delve once again into the controversial issue of limits on money in politics.

This time, it's the limits placed by federal law on how much an individual can contribute to candidates and political organizations.

The court today agreed to take up a challenge brought by an Alabama man who claims it's unconstitutional to prevent him from giving more than $46,200 to candidates and $70,800 to PACs and political committees. He does not challenge the limit on contributions to an individual candidate, but he does claim it's unconstitutional to prevent him from contributing to as many candidates as he wishes.

The Republican National Committee joins him in the challenge.

Here comes the bully pulpit… Obama to give remarks at 10:45 am ET calling on Congress to avoid the so-called sequester… Rubio vs. White House -- bad for immigration reform, or exactly what’s needed to pass it?... White House vs. MSM… Sanford goes on “TODAY”… Retirement watch for 2014… On Johanns and bipartisanship… Simpson-Bowles, Part 2… And for the GOP, time to move away from Reagan?

Scott Olson / Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks to students and guests during a visit to Hyde Park Academy High School on Feb. 15, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois.

*** Here comes the bully pulpit: At 10:45 am ET, President Obama will deliver a statement urging Congress to avoid the automatic spending cuts set to take effect on March 1. Per the White House, the president will make these remarks surrounded by emergency responders -- “the kinds of working Americans whose jobs are on the line if Congressional Republicans fail to compromise on a balanced solution,” it says. House Speaker John Boehner’s office tells First Read it agrees that the so-called sequester “is a bad way to cut spending.” More from Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck: “That's why we've twice passed a plan to replace it with common sense cuts and reforms that don't threaten our security, safety, and economy.” But you can see where this is going. Today, Obama will be surrounded by first responders; tomorrow, it might be military families; and the day after that, it could be with essential government workers who could be furloughed. This is the one power a president has with Congress as it relates to domestic policy: the power of persuasion. We have seen the future of this sequester fight over the next few weeks, and it is today -- a massive public-relations effort with the president using his pulpit to drop a political hammer on Congress.

*** Rubio vs. White House: Bad for immigration reform? Or exactly what’s needed to pass it? While today’s policy fight is over the sequester, during the long holiday weekend it was over the thorny issue of immigration. The skirmish began with USA Today getting its hands on the White House’s draft immigration proposal, which apparently would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years. Within hours of publication, Sen. Marco Rubio -- who’s part of a bipartisan group of senators working on comprehensive immigration reform -- blasted that White House proposal as being “dead on arrival in Congress.” Not a good sign of passing immigration reform, right? Well, Talking Points Memo has the theory (which we share) that this kind of conflict is what’s EXACTLY needed to pass immigration reform. Why? “Not wanting to be seen as a shill for a Democratic president’s signature achievement, Rubio’s strategy from the start has been to play up his differences with the White House as much as possible… The Republicans [Rubio] needs to win over to pass a bill will be a lot more comfortable if they think they’re somehow thumbing their nose at Obama by voting for it.” So if you’re a Republican supporting immigration reform, you eagerly want to highlight any differences with the White House (no matter how small they might be). On the other hand, if you’re an opponent of immigration reform, your goal is to point out how similar the proposals are. And that is exactly what we saw happen yesterday.

*** The White House vs. the MSM: This morning, Politico runs a piece noting that President Obama has become “a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House,” and it’s central beef has gone around the Mainstream Media (which includes the news organization that printed the piece). While the article comes across as whining and uses the non-news story of Obama golfing with Tiger Woods as its peg, it does make two important points. One, the president hasn’t given an interview with a White House reporter (the folks who are covering him) in over a year. And two, as ABC’s Ann Compton raises in the piece, the White House no longer gives policy briefings on important topics. Then again, despite those valid criticisms, here’s something to keep in mind: The same piece could have been written about every modern president, going back to Nixon. (Think of all the wasted ink and gripes about Reagan’s media mastermind, the late Michael Deaver.) All presidents want to control their images and access to the media. And with changes in technology and the news business, the ways to do that keep growing and growing.

*** Sanford goes on “TODAY”: With the special GOP primary to fill South Carolina’s vacated House taking place next month, former Gov. Mark Sanford (R) went on “TODAY” to talk about his candidacy in the race. He said that while he failed in marriage ("If we live long enough, we're going to fail at something”), he never failed South Carolina taxpayers. But when NBC’s Savannah Guthrie brought up the State Ethics Commission charges that were unearthed after knowledge of Sanford’s affair -- spending taxpayer money on business-class flights, using state aircraft for personal travel, spending campaign funds for non-campaign expenses -- Sanford said he never admitted guilt, despite agreeing to pay $74,000 to settle those ethics charges. Flashback to the March 2010. The Columbia State: “In the agreement, released Thursday, the Ethics Commission issued a public reprimand to the governor and disagreed with his argument that he broke no laws.” Depends on the meaning of an “ethics” fine?

*** Retirement watch for 2014: NBC’s Kasie Hunt reported yesterday that Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) will not be seeking re-election next year. So here’s our retirement watch for 2014: The Democrats -- so far -- have to defend four open seats (West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller, Massachusetts’ John Kerry, Iowa’s Tom Harkin, and New Jersey’s Frank Lautenberg), versus two for Republicans (Nebraska’s Johanns and Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss). But the political reality is that the Republican-held open seats in Georgia and Nebraska will be much easier for the GOP to defend, while Democrats will have to fight tooth and nail (and pray for a divisive GOP primaries) in Iowa and West Virginia to hold on to those seats. What’s more, Democrats have to keep their eye on other potential retirements in South Dakota (Tim Johnson) and Michigan (Carl Levin). That’s the task for Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Executive Director Guy Cecil, whom the New York Times profiles today.

*** On Johanns and bipartisanship: Speaking of Johanns, it’s worth noting that this former George W. Bush cabinet member belonged to the so-called “Gang of Eight” trying to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction (he’s the second of four GOP members of that Gang to announce his retirement; Saxby Chambliss is the other). He also voted against the GOP filibuster against Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be defense secretary -- and said he’d vote for his fellow Nebraskan in an up-or-down vote. Ask yourself this: Is the Senate, post-2014, going to be better off without someone like Johanns?

*** Simpson-Bowles, Part 2: Speaking of bipartisan deficit-reduction deals, Simpson-Bowles, Part 2 is being rolled out today. They are calling for $2.4 trillion in additional deficit reduction, as well as a 3-to-1 ratio of cuts (including entitlement reform) to tax increases (via tax reform). How many Republicans will embrace Simpson-Bowles Part 2 if it includes more taxes? We’re guessing not many. This plan  -- and it’s embrace of chained CPI on Social Security -- looks a lot more like something the president could support than congressional Republicans right now.

*** Time to move away from Reagan? Yesterday, we learned that Sarah Palin -- remember her? -- will be addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in the DC area next month. But with prominent Republicans and conservatives slated to speak at the annual confab, taking place just months after the party’s losses in 2012, this New York Times op-ed by conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru is worth chewing on: The GOP needs to move away from Ronald Reagan, especially as it relates to dealing with policy issues 25 years after he left office. After all, as Ponnuru writes, Reagan cut taxes at a time when the top rate was 70%; now it’s half of that. “In his first Inaugural Address, Reagan famously said that ‘government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.’ The less famous yet crucial beginning of that sentence was ‘in our present crisis.’ The question is whether conservatism revives by attending to today’s conditions, or becomes something withered and dead.”

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 “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews SC GOP Chair Chad Connelly and SC Dem Chair Dick Harpootlian about the race between 19 candidates including Mark Sanford vying for a SC district congressional seat; Daryl Hannah will talk about the Keystone XL pipeline controversy.  Perry Bacon, Ken Vogel and Rep. Joe Garcia will discuss preview's the President's live remarks on sequestration and discuss immigration. David Winston and Emily Tisch Sussman talk about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Dr. Rafael Yuste, a member of an elite group working on brain mapping for the White House will be on to discuss the project.

*** Tuesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein.  Today’s Power Panel includes:  the Washington Post’s Nia Malika Henderson, Democratic strategist Doug Thornell, and Republican strategist Chip Saltsman.

*** Tuesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin, Harold Ford Jr., Demos’ Heather McGhee, and actress Kristin Davis.

*** Tuesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Ambassador Nicholas Burns and the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza.

*** Tuesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Politico’s Lois Romano, Again Capital’s Jim Kilduff on Gas Prices, Dem strategist Keith Boykin, Time Magazine’s Jim Frederick on US senators in Mali on fact finding mission, and Michael Smerconish.

“Facing yet another fiscal deadline, President Barack Obama is urging congressional Republicans to accept more tax revenue in order to avert looming, across-the-board budget cuts due to take effect in less than two weeks,” the AP reports. “Obama, fresh off a three-day Florida golfing trip, was to press his case during an event at the White House on Tuesday morning. Emergency responders, a group of workers the White House says could be affected if state and local governments lose federal money as a result of the cuts, were joining him. The $85 billion in cuts, known as the sequester, will start taking effect on March 1 unless Congress acts.”

“President Obama will urge congressional Republicans to avoid automatic budget cuts next month by appearing Tuesday with a group of emergency responders who might have to absorb some of those cuts,” USA Today writes. “The group of emergency responders who will stand beside Obama at 10:45 a.m. are "the kinds of working Americans whose jobs are on the line if Congressional Republicans fail to compromise on a balanced solution," said an addition to the White House schedule.”

“Congress must replace upcoming ‘dumb’ across-the-board budget cuts with targeted spending cuts and sweeping changes to tackle the nation's debt without restricting economic growth, the former co-chairs of President Obama's debt commission say in a revamped bipartisan proposal for fiscal restraint,” USA Today writes. “Erskine Bowles, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, and former senator Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, were scheduled to appear at a Washington breakfast hosted by Politico on Tuesday to promote their renewed call for fiscal restraint under the banner of the Campaign to Fix the Debt.” They write in an outline of their proposal: "The mindless, across-the-board cuts from sequestration would reduce the deficit, but represent the wrong approach to budgeting.”

Bob Woodward on FOX News Sunday said the sequester was the White House’s idea, but that everyone “has their fingerprints on this.” “First of-, it was the White House, it was Obama and Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic leader in the Senate Harry Reid and said this is the solution, but everyone has their fingerprints on this and it is everyone's - it is the policy and it is law, what is important about it is, it is a governing travesty.”

Stories that will only increase as the sequester deadline nears… The Boston Globe: “Massachusetts will lose more than 60,000 jobs, much of it in the defense industry, and $127 million in federal research funding, harming a critical sector of the state economy, if Congress allows across-the-board spending cuts to go into effect in March, according to a report released Friday by Representative Edward Markey of Malden.”

WTOP radio: “Virginia's governor to Obama: Don't let sequestration happen.” McDonnell writes in a letter to the president that the sequester is “already having a significant adverse effect on the Commonwealth.” He adds, “When fully implemented, they could force Virginia and other states into a recession.” He says the government needs to “cut spending” and even calls the debt “immoral,” but in a “not in my backyard” twist, McDonnell writes, “We just ask that you don’t put a disproportionate share of the burden on our defenders of freedom.” Here’s McDonnell’s full letter to Obama.

The sequester would equally cut domestic programs and Defense.

Vice President Biden “will be speaking Thursday at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, which is just a few miles away from the scene of the Dec. 14 massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,” AP writes.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hits the speaking circuit, where she could make “close to $200,000 per speech in the U.S. — and as much as $750,000 in the high-priced Asian and Middle Eastern markets,” the New York Daily News writes. “Bill Clinton earned $13.4 million on the speechmaking circuit in 2011, according to the most recent financial disclosure statement Hillary Clinton filed as secretary of state.”

First Lady Michelle Obama cut her hair because she’s having a mid-life crisis, she told Rachel Ray. "This is my midlife crisis, the bangs. I couldn't get a sports car. They won't let me bungee jump. So instead, I cut my bangs." The do was first seen on Jan. 17, her 49^th birthday.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says it raised $6.1 million in January -- it’s biggest January haul in history. The National Republican Congressional Committee raised $4.4 million last month.

KENTUCKY: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could see a primary challenge from local businessman Matt Bevin, who sources say is reaching out to Tea Party groups in the state to gauge support for a 2014 Senate run. Sarah Duran, president of the Louisville Tea Party, told The Hill that Bevin had been in touch with her over the phone to discuss his run multiple times over the past few weeks, and that he met with the group two weeks ago to discuss his interest in the race.”

NEW JERSEY: Not sure this is a headline that will win Chris Christie any votes in a GOP presidential primary: “Christie: ‘I’m not much different from Andrew Cuomo’.” A former Democratic county chairman from Upstate New York said he met Christie he told him, “I’m not much different from Andrew Cuomo. I probably agree with him on 98% of the issues.”

SOUTH CAROLINA: Mark Sanford on “TODAY”: "I failed mightily." He acknowledged that his run is partially because "we all hope for redemption." He also said, "If we live long enough, we're going to fail at something." Despite his settling ethics charges and pay $74,000 in fines as well as an additional $66,223 for the cost of the investigation, Sanford contended that he may have failed in marriage, but "not the taxpayer.”

Flashback to the March 2010. The Columbia State: “In the agreement, released Thursday, the Ethics Commission issued a public reprimand to the governor and disagreed with his argument that he broke no laws. … Sanford previously reimbursed the state $3,300 for airfare for a 2008 South America trade trip, sponsored by the state Commerce Department, during which he met his lover.” More: " ‘The fact that he signed the consent order, there's clearly some issue,’ said state Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens.”

And: “S.C. House lawmakers held impeachment hearings to investigate but decided only to formally rebuke the governor.”

Here’s Sanford new ad, in which he says, “I’ve experienced how none of us go through life without mistakes. But in their wake we can learn a lot about grace, a God of second chances and be the better for it. In that light, I humbly step forward and ask for your help in changing Washington.”

Mississippi finally outlawed slavery. The Jackson Clarion Ledger: “There was an asterisk beside Mississippi. A note read: ‘Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but because the state never officially notified the US Archivist, the ratification is not official.’”

With the Supreme Court this year deciding a couple of gay-marriage cases, an Anzalone Liszt Grove Research poll -- conducted for The Respect for Marriage Coalition, an umbrella group of gay-rights organizations like the Human Rights Campaign -- finds that a majority of American voters believe that marrying someone you love is a right that all Americans (whether gay or straight) should enjoy. What’s more, the poll shows that 77% of voters say that gay marriage will be legal in “the next couple of years,” and 83% think that will be the case in “the next five to 10 years.”

Lastly, former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright book about her family and the Holocaust is now out in paperback, “Prague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948.”

UPDATED, 12:34 pm ET -- Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns will retire at the end of his current Senate term.

"We have decided not to seek re-election," Johanns and his wife, Stephanie, wrote to constituents Monday. "It is time to close this chapter of our lives." 

Johanns called state Republican officials, including Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, to inform them of his decision to retire. Heineman is likely to seek Johanns' seat, open in 2014. 

An announcement event wasn't planned, but the senator had already scheduled a series of town hall meetings across his state this week while the Senate is on break.

Johanns is one of just two Republican senators publicly backing former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R) nomination to be defense secretary. Other GOP senators have been aggressively critical of their former colleague, labeling him unqualified for the job. Hagel's nomination by President Obama was filibustered this past week as GOP opposition to Hagel intensified. Johanns replaced Hagel in the Senate.

Before he was senator, Johanns served as governor of Nebraska and was Secretary of Agriculture under former President George W. Bush. 

Several candidates have already told state Republican officials they're interested in running. Heineman can't run for the governorship again -- he's term-limited -- and will be ending his tenure as governor in 2014, making the timing of the race ideal. 

Also interested is Jon Bruning, the current attorney general, who lost to current Republican Sen. Deb Fischer in the Senate primary in 2012. State treasurer Don Stenberg, who's run for Senate four times before, could also get in, as could U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry.

Here's Johanns' full letter to constituents:

Dear Fellow Nebraskans,
    We would like to share with you a decision we have made about running for re-election to the United States Senate. We have decided not to seek re-election.
    Words are inadequate to fully express our appreciation for the friendship and support you have given to us over the past three decades.
    With everything in life, there is a time and a season. At the end of this term, we will have been in public service over 32 years. Between the two of us, we have been on the ballot for primary and general elections 16 times and we have served in eight offices. It is time to close this chapter of our lives.
    During these many years, we have cherished our time together. So as we think about the next stage of our lives, we want a quieter time with our focus on each other, our family and our faith. We are also confident that there will be many more opportunities to serve our state and our nation.
    We look forward to the remaining time in the Senate. It is an honor to have served in so many ways over so many years.
    May God continue to bless Nebraska and our great nation.
                        Sincerely, Mike & Stephanie Johanns 

This story was originally published on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:35 AM EST

PORT ST LUCIE, Fla. -- President Barack Obama played a round of golf with Tiger Woods on Sunday, but nobody knew about it until a lone tweet from a golf reporter went live. And now, the White House Press Corps Association has lodged a complaint against the administration, bemoaning the transparency afforded to pool reporters.

At 11 a.m. ET, Golf Digest reporter Tim Rosaforte tweeted this from his vantage point at the exclusive Floridian Yacht and Golf Club in Palm City: "The President is arriving at The Floridian range. Awaiting is Tiger Woods and club owner Jim Crane. Historic day in golf. Their first round."

White House reporters, looking to confirm Woods’ presence, immediately made inquiries with the president’s press team, which went unanswered for almost three hours – confirmation came at 1:46 p.m. ET.

The press corps had been anxious to confirm Woods’ presence. The president playing with the world’s most famous golfer -- involved in a 2009 sex scandal -- immediately became a national news story, as opposed to the commander in chief simply having some down-time with friends.

The small group of reporters assigned to cover the president’s every movement, known as the "pool," also requested access to the Floridian grounds to be nearby the president, even though the press’ vantage point was nowhere near the golf course. But the pool was not shuttled to the resort until 4:18 p.m. ET.

White House Press Corps Association president Ed Henry lodged an official complaint with the White House, writing in a statement, “I can say a broad cross section of our members from print, radio, online and TV have today expressed extreme frustration to me about having absolutely no access to the President of the United States this entire weekend. There is a very simple but important principle we will continue to fight for today and in the days ahead: transparency."

The White House responded with a statement from deputy press secretary Josh Earnest: “The press access granted by the White House today is entirely consistent with the press access offered for previous presidential golf outings. It's also consistent with the press access promised to the White House Press Corps prior to arrival in Florida on Friday evening."

President Barack Obama's choice to lead the Pentagon, former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, will likely be confirmed next week, one of his most dogged opponents said Sunday.

"I'm confident that Sen. Hagel will probably have the votes necessary to be confirmed as secretary of defense," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

After Senate Republicans voted to sustain a filibuster and block the former Nebraska senator's nomination from advancing toward confirmation, McCain acknowledged that Hagel will likely win confirmation once the chamber returns from its recess.

"I think it's a reasonable amount of time to have questions answered," McCain said of the week-and-a-half-long window which Senate Republicans demanded to pore more thoroughly over their former colleague's records.

Democrats and the Obama administration have complained that a filibuster for a defense secretary nominee is without precedent. Moreover, they argue that filling the defense post is particularly urgent given outgoing Secretary Leon Panetta's plans to leave the Pentagon, and the looming "sequester" of automatic spending cuts, which fall heavily upon the defense budget.

The administration publicly shrugged off, though, the notion that the delay had damaged Hagel's ability to serve effectively.

"No, he's not going to be a weaker defense secretary," said Denis McDonough, the president's new chief of staff, "he's going to be a great defense secretary."

Wrapped up into the GOP's objections are the desire to ding the administration, a demand for fuller answers to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and personal quarrels with Hagel over his criticism of President George W. Bush and the handling of the war in Iraq. McCain denied, though, that Republicans' attacks on Hagel were personal in nature.

"99 percent of it has to do with the positions Sen. Hagel has taken," he said.

The Hagel fight has consumed Congress in recent weeks, threatening to expend Obama's political capital as he enters a second term. It's yet to be seen whether this fight, and the looming fight to replace the sequester with other equivalent savings, would affect other elements of the Obama agenda — including gun control, and immigration.

Amid a New York Times report that suggested the White House had pushed ahead with its own immigration bill, McDonough said it was consistent with Obama's promise to simply be prepared with his own alternative plan. Obama, McDonough said, was still hoping that a bipartisan Senate group would be able to produce its own comprehensive immigration reform proposal.

"I believe we're making progress on a bipartisan basis," said McCain, a member of the eight-member, bipartisan Senate group working on the immigration proposal. The Arizona senator said, though, that Obama had had no communications with the Senate group.

"Does the president really want a result?" asked McCain, reflecting Republicans' concerns on the politics of immigration. "Or does he want another cudgel so he can beat up Republicans to get an advantage in the next election?"

This story was originally published on Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:02 PM EST

With the Senate falling short Thursday of the 60 votes needed to move to a confirmation vote on defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, Majority Leader Harry Reid was correct in claiming that never before had the Senate had a cloture vote on a nominee to run the Defense Department.

Related: The Valentine's Day filibuster

But it’s not unprecedented for the Senate to have cloture votes on other presidential nominations – from ambassadors to judges.

The Senate changed its rules in 1949 to allow cloture motions on nominations, but cloture wasn’t sought on a nomination until 1968. From that year until March of 2012 cloture was sought on 99 nominations, including some well-known nominees:

• Abe Fortas to be chief justice in 1968
• William Rehnquist to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court in 1971 and to be chief justice in 1986
• John Bolton to be ambassador the United Nations in 2005
• Ben Bernanke to be chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2010
• Richard Cordray to be head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2012.

But not in every case of a cloture vote is there a prolonged debate on the nomination which ties up the Senate for days – in fact, in most cases there isn’t.

A cloture vote, if successful, allows a final up-or-down vote on confirming the nominee, after up to 30 more hours of debate. For confirmation, a simple majority is usually, but not always, all that is needed.

The decision to seek a cloture vote is in the majority leader’s hands and he can time cloture votes not merely to push forward a nomination and get a vacancy filled, but to paint the nominee’s opponents as obstructionists.

Reid and previous Senate leaders have used cloture votes to drive political messages and to generate enthusiasm among their party’s base.

Case in point: Miguel Estrada, President George W. Bush’s nominee to the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist insisted on seven separate votes on cloture on the Estrada nomination in 2003.

Each of them failed, but they hammered home that Reid and the Democrats were blocking a nominee whom Republicans thought was amply qualified and who happened to be a Latino immigrant.

“This is a dark moment, I believe, in the history of the United States Senate,” Frist said after the final vote on Estrada failed and the nominee withdrew.

Senators, Frist said “have been denied a very, very basic right” to vote on the nominee and “Miguel Estrada has been denied the opportunity to be considered by this body by a single up-or-down vote, whereby individual colleagues could vote either for or against a brilliant, a qualified nominee, all because of the obstruction of a few.”

More than a few: 43 Democrats, including Reid, voted against cloture on Estrada.

After Reid filed the cloture motion on Wednesday, Republicans denied that they really were stalling Hagel’s confirmation by a filibuster.

“What we are doing is not a filibuster,” Sen. Jim Inhofe, R- Okla., said Wednesday on the Senate floor. “We are seeking a 60 vote threshold for a controversial nomination. If the majority really wanted to move forward quickly, all they have to do is agree to a 60-vote margin, like they did with the (Kathleen) Sebelius and (John) Bryson nominations.”

When President Obama nominated Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services in 2009, Republicans and anti-abortion groups delayed her confirmation, partly due to her understating the amount of campaign contributions she had received from a Kansas abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller, and partly due to her veto, as Kansas governor, of a bill to impose new limits on abortion providers.

In the negotiations over Sebelius, Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell agreed to 60-vote threshold on confirmation – a procedure they could use in Hagel’s case as well.

Recommended: With job losses 'speculative' only, Capitol Hill not panicking over sequester cuts

Inhofe contended that, “A 60-vote margin is not a filibuster. We are merely saying the Senate is entitled to this information” -- on speeches that Hagel had given in the past few years.

The term “filibuster” evokes images of actor Jimmy Stewart holding the Senate floor until he collapses from exhaustion in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. And there have been famous single-senator filibusters: Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record of 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to a civil rights bill in 1957.

But by the time the Senate voted on cloture Thursday there had been only two days of intermittent floor debate on Hagel’s nomination – with discussion of the defense secretary nominee interspersed with unrelated speeches on global climate change, the Keystone XL Pipeline, kidney transplants, whether certain sites in Plaquemines Parish, La. should be units of the National Park System and various other topics.

Whether those two days of intermittent debate were or weren’t a filibuster, congressional expert Sarah Binder who teaches political science at George Washington University said the Hagel debate “represents a significant change in the Senate's practice of advice and consent.  The issue here is the target of the filibuster-- an appointment to the president's ‘inner cabinet.’ My sense is that there has generally been a strong degree of deference to the president over his appointments to the executive branch-- particularly over the choice of his top appointments to State, Treasury, Justice, and Defense.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee to be Defense Secretary, on Capitol Hill, Jan. 31, 2013.

Binder said, “I don't think we should be surprised to find partisan polarization seeping over into these top confirmation battles. Partisanship has spread almost everywhere else in the Senate.”

In the past filibusters and cloture votes were not always an essential part of delaying a nominee.

In the case of John Tower’s nomination to be defense secretary in 1989, President-elect George H.W. Bush announced his nomination in December of 1988, but it was not until March of 1989 that Tower was defeated – not on a cloture vote but on a confirmation vote. The vote came after six days of Senate floor debate.

Tower’s ally Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., denounced the delay: “I have a large problem with the scenario that we won’t vote until every single allegation that comes over the transom is investigated.”

Of all people, Reid knows how effective the threat of a filibuster can be: he was Senate minority whip in 203 and 2004 when Democrats successfully blocked confirmation votes on ten Bush appeals court nominees, including Estrada.

That Democratic filibuster effort won applause from progressive groups. “For months, Senate Democrats have been heroically holding out against President Bush's nominations of extremist judges to America's most powerful courts,” Moveon.org told its supporter in 2003.

Citing Estrada’s withdrawal, Moveon.org said, “Our campaign to stop Bush's extremist nominees has been extraordinarily successful so far.” Estrada’s defeat “was a major victory -- the first time Bush has conceded defeat on any nomination.”

Now for some progressive groups, the delay in Hagel’s confirmation makes the case for changing Senate rules to further limit filibusters.

In a statement Thursday night, George Kohl, Senior Director at the Communications Workers of America, a union that contributed heavily to Democratic candidates in 2012, said, “A real Senate reform package would have made the obstructionists hold the floor and keep 41 of their colleagues with them over a holiday weekend.” Kohl added “the Republicans in the Senate remain intent on breaking new ground in Senate obstruction,” and “Senate Democrats who worked to scuttle more substantial reforms have forfeited their right to complain.”