AP: “A daylong House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday starred three State Department officials invited by Republicans. Security was poorly handled in Benghazi, Libya, they said, and administration officials later tried to obscure what happened. But the three men offered little that has not been aired in previous congressional hearings. Afterward, Republicans all but acknowledged they’re still seeking a knockout punch.”

In fact, Lindsey Graham says Hillary Clinton should come back to testify on Benghazi and should be required to do so by subpoena, if necessary. "I hope she would come back without that, but yes," he told USA Today. "I think she needs to come back and answer questions. Did she know that Cheryl Mills called the DCM (deputy chief of mission) to tell him, watch the member of Congress and don't talk to him? And there's now evidence that she was made aware of the security concerns and basically ignored security requests."

“The Senate Gang of Eight made a series of overt attempts Thursday to win over Republicans on immigration reform, using the first day of Judiciary Committee debate to tighten border security measures on the bill,” Politico writes. “None of the amendments impose drastic changes on the legislation. The most significant concession involved requiring the government to achieve ‘effective control’ of the entire Southwestern border, not just high-risk areas.”

Look! It’s a prince! “Ladies, grab your Union Jacks: Prince Harry, the world's most eligible royal bachelor, is here,” USA Today writes. “Rarely has such squealing been heard in the corridors of the Capitol when the 28-year-old third-in-line to the British throne turned up for a visit Thursday. And then more squealing when he appeared at a White House tea party for an unexpected drop-in with a crowd of stunned military moms and grandmoms.”

Kicking off a first day of edits to comprehensive immigration reform legislation, lawmakers on a key Senate panel grappled Thursday over efforts to secure the nation’s borders and prevent a new wave of illegal entrants.

As expected, Democrats on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee were joined by two Republican members of the bipartisan Gang of Eight in opposing the most stringent border security amendments offered by opponents of the bill, ranging from a massive influx of boots on the ground at the nation’s southern border to delays to the program that would make undocumented immigrants eligible for a probationary legal status.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (C) confers with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (R) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (L) during the Senate Judiciary Committee's markup for the immigration reform bill on Capitol Hill May 9, 2013 in Washington, DC.

But the panel also adopted a total of 21 amendments, including eight proposed by Republicans. Those included measures to beef up oversight of the legislation’s implementation, offer greater flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds for technology and infrastructure, and include private landowners in a task force consulting on border security. The panel also accepted an amendment by ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley that would widen the areas subject to border security strategies beyond the most high-risk sectors.

In the seventh hour of negotiations otherwise largely devoid of fireworks, frustrated foes of the legislation lamented the defeat of seven GOP amendments throughout the day.

“The Gang stuck together – as we’d been told they would – on anything that significantly impacted their legislation that they drafted with their friends,” said leading opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  

“The committee has consistently rejected any attempts to put real teeth in this bill to secure the border,” alleged Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. “And if it doesn’t have real border security, in my opinion, this bill will not pass.”

Throughout the day, bipartisan drafters of the legislation emphasized their belief that the original legislation has tough border security measures and noted that they are open to improvements.

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin, a member of the Gang of Eight, said opponents were wrong to accuse the committee of “stiff-arming” suggestions from GOP members.

 “We’ve accepted eight Republican amendments,” he said. “We’re open to good ideas from both sides.”

A frustrated Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the bipartisan drafting group,  suggested that Cruz and other foes of the bill decry the “false issue” of inadequate border security while working to cut the legislation’s centerpiece provision to offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The dispute spotlighted tensions in the committee as proponents of reform reject amendments intended to upset the legislation’s delicate compromises without appearing close-minded to legitimate efforts to improve the bill.

Republican Gang of Eight members Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham were joined by Orrin Hatch in voting down a Cruz-sponsored measure that would have tripled the amount of agents on patrol and quadrupled resources like drones and helicopters at the border.

Opponents of that amendment said it would be both prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily at a time when the number of border patrol agents is at an all-time high; it failed five votes to thirteen.

The panel also rejected a Grassley amendment that would have delayed the process of making undocumented immigrants eligible to apply for provisionary legal status until the Department of Homeland Security demonstrated “effective control” of the southern border for six months.

Gang of Eight members argued that waiting to make undocumented immigrants come forward would ultimately delay the implementation of other components of reform – like a workplace-verification system – and would therefore hurt the bill’s larger goal of preventing more illegal immigration.

“I think it would be the wrong approach to delay bringing people out of the shadows,” said Flake.

By the same margin, the committee voted down a measure proposed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that would have required fast-track congressional approval of the Department of Homeland Security’s border security plan before undocumented immigrants could apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who does not serve on the Judiciary panel but is a crucial Republican supporter of the bill, said in a statement that he is "encouraged" by the process so far.

"There’s still a long way to go, but I am encouraged that we are witnessing a transparent and deliberate process to accept input to improve this legislation," he said.

The panel’s markup process will continue next Tuesday.

Related stories:

• Immigration reform's enemies, allies prep for battle
• Conservative group pegs cost of 'path to citizenship' at $6.3T

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 6:34 PM EDT

The top Democratic drafter of immigration legislation was optimistic Thursday that Republicans will support the “good, strong  proposal” to reform the nation’s immigration system.

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who joined Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and six other lawmakers to craft the bipartisan bill, also acknowledged that he “worries” about how the group will resolve the question of whether LGBT couples should have the same protections as hetereosexual spouses in the final legislation.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left, confers with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as the Senate Judiciary Committee meets on immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has proposed amendments that would incorporate the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) – which would allow the foreign-born partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual U.S. citizens to apply for green card status – into the legislation. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight have made clear that they cannot support the bill if that measure is included, although it’s not yet clear at what point it might come up for a vote.  

“This one is something, you know, I worry about all the time,” Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill, saying that the issue keeps him awake at night even though he’s a “good sleeper.”

“Our four Democratic colleagues – including myself – believe that this is not just another issue but an issue of discrimination and so how we resolve this remains to be seen,” he added.

Schumer would not say if he would vote for the amendment if Leahy introduces it.

“I would like very much to see it in the bill,” he said. “But we have to have a bill that has support to get UAFA passed. That's the conundrum. because if there's no bill, there's no UAFA either."

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 2:31 PM EDT

In a day of congressional testimony that once again found the Obama administration under fire, a trio of whistleblowers expressed frustration toward the government’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 assault against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and its subsequent investigation into that incident.

The diplomatic officials appeared on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to describe a hasty and chaotic response to the attack, which left four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – dead.

The witnesses said that the government was poorly prepared to weather the attack and was hesitant to respond, also contending that a subsequent review of the incident ordered by the State Department came up woefully short.

The testimony included new details from Gregory Hicks, a career foreign service officer who served as the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks.

He painstakingly recounted frenetic efforts to communicate between besieged individuals in Benghazi, and the governments of Libya and the United States. And he relayed the frustration of special forces who were told to stand down in Tripoli – Hicks said he did not know who gave the order – from deploying to Benghazi.

“They were furious,” Hicks told lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I will quote Lt. Col. Gibson. He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”

IN DEPTH: Official: US Special Forces team wasn't allowed to fly to Benghazi during attack

Hicks joined two other witnesses in a hearing driven primarily by Republicans, who have zealously pursued the Benghazi incident based on suspicions that President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been caught flat-footed by the attack, or worse, orchestrated a cover-up about the attack to benefit the president’s re-election bid.

At no point did Hicks or his fellow witnesses – Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya – accuse the president or Clinton of having halted forces that might have assisted besieged diplomats in Benghazi. Democrats repeatedly pointed to testimony suggesting that reinforcements would have not have arrived in time, anyway.

But Republicans seized on several morsels of information, in particular Hicks’s incredulity toward the administration’s initial explanation, voiced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of protests related to an anti-Islamic video.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said of his reaction to Rice’s appearances on a series of Sunday talk shows following the attack. He further testified that there were no indications of protests in Libya, and that at no time did they suspect that the Benghazi attack was related to protests.

Republicans also homed in on suggestions by Hicks that a top Clinton aide had reacted angrily when Hicks agreed to speak privately with GOP investigators looking into the Benghazi attack. Hicks said that Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, called him “upset” about his conversation with the GOP lawmakers.

The witnesses also expressed their misgivings about the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) findings in a subsequent investigation into the government’s response to the attacks. The ARB, the witnesses said, failed to interview senior enough leaders in the State Department.

The testimony prompted pointed responses from Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who co-authored the ARB, and allies of Clinton, the popular former secretary of state who’s seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

“I believe the Accountability Review Board did its work well,” Pickering, a coauthor of the report, said Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. “I think the notion, quote, of ‘a cover-up’ has the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.”

And Philippe Reines, a senior aide to Clinton, told NBC News that accusations that Mills interfered in an investigation into Benghazi “completely and utterly false.”

Indeed, Democrats headed into the hearing warning against politicization of the Benghazi incident.

“I am not questioning the motives of our witnesses,” said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, at the outset of the hearings. “I am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes.”

His admonition didn’t stop many Republicans from plowing ahead with their questions.

“It's one of great mysteries,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, of questions as to why terror response forces were not ordered into action on Sept. 11. “Here we have this expertise, we've invested heavily in it, they tabletop it, they understand it, this is exactly what they train for and they were never asked to go into action.”

But while many Republicans appeared eager to keep Benghazi alive as a political issue, not all Republicans seemed as concerned about the issue, or the Obama administration’s forthcoming.

“I’ve been able to read all the cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,” said Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on MSNBC. “I’m fairly satisfied.”

This story was originally published on Wed May 8, 2013 11:02 AM EDT

Voters in South Carolina’s first congressional district head to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to offer former Gov. Mark Sanford a chance at political redemption, or instead send the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert to Congress.

Sanford, the Republican former governor whose time in office ended in a scandal triggered by a nationally-publicized extramarital affair and subsequent divorce, is seeking to once again win the district that elected him to Congress for three terms. A special election was called for this solidly Republican seat following GOP Rep. Tim Scott’s resignation to become the state’s next senator.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Elizabeth Colbert Busch and Mark Sanford shake hands after the South Carolina 1st Congresional debate in Charleston on April 29, 2013.

But while Sanford entered the special election as a modest favorite, he’s run into stiff opposition from Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Clemson University administrator whose famous sibling has helped elevate what might otherwise be a mundane congressional race into a national media spectacle.

Democrats have rallied behind Colbert Busch, who has leaned on her relationships with members of the Charleston-area district during the campaign, and stressed her interest in partnering with businesses. Her experience, combined with Sanford’s personal baggage, has transformed the campaign into a competitive contest in a district where a Democrat hasn’t won since the early 1980s.

Sanford, in turn, has cast his Democratic challenger as a handmaiden of national Democrats, particularly House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a cardboard cutout of whom Sanford staged a debate with several weeks ago.

But the biggest unspoken variable in the campaign has undeniably been the affair that practically torpedoed Sanford’s political career, which, at the time, included presidential aspirations.

Sanford launched his campaign by acknowledging the mistakes he’d made in conducting an extramarital affair with Argentine woman Maria Belen Chapur (who is now Sanford’s fiancée). The affair was an undercurrent for much of this spring’s campaign until Jenny Sanford, the governor’s former wife, filed a lawsuit alleging Sanford of having trespassed on her property.

For his part, Sanford’s betting that stage of the campaign is behind him.

"I think that [voters] had largely moved past my personal life at the end of the runoff, because I would have never won that runoff if that was still the focus," Sanford told the Huffington Post. "I think that the whole trespassing, October surprise thing brought that all back into the forefront."

Nonetheless, the revelation shook up the campaign, prompting the National Republican Congressional Committee – the group charged with electing GOP-ers to the House – to withdraw its resources from the campaign. And Democrats, along with supportive super PACs, stepped forward to launch their own advertising blitz in support of Colbert Busch.

Those moves prompted speculation that Sanford’s bid at political redemption might come up short following today’s special election. But the former governor has sought to battle back in recent days by stampeding throughout the district (with a handful of national media members in tow) and hosting multiple events.

But Colbert Busch has also tried to sustain her momentum with the benefit of national Democrats working on her behalf, who are eager to peel a vote away from Republicans’ majority in the House.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 5:09 AM EDT

Attention turns in Congress to immigration. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its mark up Thursday of the Gang of Eight’s bill.

“A Republican group that backs an immigration overhaul is shifting its advertising strategy as it prepares for the Senate to take up the debate when it returns from recess this week. The American Action Network, an issue-advocacy organization aligned with a super PAC and a Hispanic outreach arm, increased its current cable television ad buy from $300,000 to $500,000, the group confirmed to CQ Roll Call.”

“Senate immigration negotiators are targeting as many as two dozen Republicans for a show-of-force majority — which they believe may be the only way a reform bill will have the momentum to force the House to act,” Politico writes. “Reform proponents are looking for votes far beyond the usual moderate suspects to senators in conservative bastions such as Utah, Georgia and Wyoming. The senators landed on the list because they’re retiring, representing agricultural states, anxious to get the issue behind the party, important to persuading skittish House Republicans or all of the above.”

Roll Call: “The Keystone XL oil pipeline, Securities and Exchange Commission regulation, student loan rates and pediatric medical research will be among the first orders of legislative business in the House when Congress returns from a weeklong recess. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., issued a memo on Friday laying out the Republicans’ legislative agenda for May. Congress is expected to be busy during the three weeks it will be in session before members take another short recess the week of Memorial Day. Cantor also promised another vote to repeal Obamacare. Though Cantor doesn’t mention it in his memo, an immigration overhaul will no doubt dominate lawmakers’ attention as it moves forward in both the House and Senate.”

More debt-ceiling shenanigans: Politico: “Now, momentum is building to tie a rewrite of the Tax Code to hiking the debt cap, which will need to be raised by the fall because the limit will technically be hit this month.”

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, bidding for political redemption in a congressional race after a high-profile divorce that seemingly ended his aspirations, sought to challenge the notion that he has a problem among women voters by spending part of a visit to a small shopping street looking for, as he put it, “a woman who hates me.”

The question of Sanford's ability to win women voters, first raised by his 2009 high-profile affair and divorce, re-emerged after a recent legal dispute with his ex-wife. He further complicated matters during a debate last week, saying he had not heard his opponent when she asked a question about the affair and his use of public funds surrounding the episode.

On Saturday, after answering several questions about whether he thought a trespassing charge at his ex-wife’s home might compromise his standing with female voters, Sanford led reporters on a foray in downtown Summerville, S.C., stopping women to ask them their opinion of him, specifically referring to the question posed by a reporter for NBC News.

“No group’s vote is a monolith,” Sanford said, pointing out that he had recently received an endorsement for Tuesday’s special election from a group of Republican women who took an ad out in a local newspaper.  Sanford is running against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch to fill the South Carolina congressional seat vacated by now-Sen. Tim Scott.

Sanford also noted that during his visit to the hot dog restaurant Perfectly Frank’s, where earlier that afternoon his campaign announced the endorsement of the Tea Party Express, patrons had not brought the issue up.

When the reporter noted that he was speaking to a crowd that included some people who had gone to the restaurant specifically for the campaign event, Sanford dismissed that context as “the case of any political venue." 

“If you’re a political figure, some people, because they hear you’re going to be at some place, they’re going to show up,” he said.

Sanford then walked across the street to begin his meet-and-greet, flanked by two campaign staffers and three reporters, telling the reporter who asked the questions about his status with women that he rejected the “premise” that women wouldn’t vote for him because of his personal life.

He then indicated he wanted to seek out women who “hated” him.

“Let’s go to this woman – does she look biased?” he asked as he crossed the street, the NBC reporter walking next to him. 

As a car whizzed by, he told the reporter, “Watch out, I don’t want you to get run over. Actually I kind of do, but that’s a different story.”

After Sanford caught up with the woman he had pointed out, she told him she was a big supporter and that she would be making phone calls for him on Tuesday.

A staffer, mimicking Sanford’s tongue-in-cheek approach, suggested that the woman had been planted.

A few shops down, he stopped in a women’s consignment store to chat with two shoppers who were visiting South Carolina from Arkansas, but who had seen some of his campaign ads and signs, which they said were “beautiful.”

“You look like you’re totally capable and we wish you luck,” one of the women told him.

Laughing, Sanford pointed to the two cameras in front of him, saying, “you hear that?”

Later, Sanford visited a women’s clothing store where the shopkeeper said she knew one of Sanford’s staffers, and that the staffer “knows I’m in your corner.”

“Oh good,” the former governor said. “[But] that defeats what I’m after.”

Pointing to the NBC reporter, he continued, “We were trying to find her a woman who hates me so she can use it in her TV show. She’s with NBC National.”

As Sanford wrapped up his hourlong canvas, he came across a couple, each of whom expressed their support for him.

After indicating, as he had previously, that the NBC reporter was looking to talk to women who didn’t support him because of his marital history, the woman, Patty Hulbard, responded, “I'm not your biggest fan. What you did I don't appreciate, but that should not influence my vote necessarily.”

 “You line up ideology with my thinking, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt,” she continued. 

“I appreciate that. Thank you,” Sanford said.

Turning to NBC’s camera, he pointed and said, “That’s pretty close to what you’re looking for. We’re getting somewhere, all right.” 

This story was originally published on Sun May 5, 2013 11:57 AM EDT

“Sen. Marco Rubio acknowledged Tuesday on a conservative radio talk show that the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill won’t likely pass the Republican-led House,” Politico writes.

Said Rubio: “The bill that’s in place right now probably can’t pass the House. It will have to be adjusted, because people are very suspicious about the willingness of the government to enforce the laws now.”

But that House is split and doesn’t know what it wants. Jake Sherman looks at infighting and “chaos” within the House GOP conference: “The GOP leadership is dealing with an unprecedented level of frustration in running the House, according to conversations with more than a dozen aides and lawmakers in and around leadership. Leadership is talking past each other. The conference is split by warring factions. And influential outside groups are fighting them. The chaos has led to a sense of stalemate for House Republicans, who have been in the majority since 2011.”

NBC’s Kasie Hunt from Warren, N.H. – “Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales.”

Politico: In the aftermath of the Senate’s failed vote two weeks ago to expand background checks, New Hampshire has suddenly emerged as ground zero in the national battle over gun control, with Ayotte now stuck at the center of the fight.

Frank Thorp / NBC News

Erica Lafferty, daughter of Sandyh Hook Elementary School victim Dawn Hochsprung, attends a town hall meeting with Senator Kelly Ayotte in Warren, N.H., on Tuesday.

WARREN, N.H. – Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales.

Erica Lafferty, who first met with the Republican senator in Washington earlier this month after she opposed the compromise negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was visibly angry as she spoke into the microphone at the meeting, which drew more than 100 people who came to condemn or support Ayotte’s vote.

"You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that," said Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.

Ayotte responded at the Warren, N.H., meeting: "Erica, I, certainly let me just say -- I'm obviously so sorry."

"And, um, I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook, I understand that's what drove this whole discussion -- all of us want to make sure that doesn't happen again," Ayotte said.

More tension followed at a larger event in Tilton, N.H., later in the day.

"Let the senator finish please!" said the moderator at the Tilton event as gun control advocates shouted from the crowd and waved signs which said "demand action to end gun violence," from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group.

Ayotte is one of a handful of senators -- others include Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- who are facing withering criticism from both sides of the debate.

Gun control proponents want the Senate to reconsider new gun laws, and pro-gun rights groups want the issue kept off the table. And they’re using ads, lobbying, and organizing at events like Ayotte’s town halls to get their points across.

Keeping center stage are the Newtown families, many of whom were on Capitol Hill for the failed gun vote, who have pledged to continue the fight for new regulations on firearms.

The senator's staff were prepared for the onslaught. Ayotte defended her vote at the top of her remarks in both towns, pointing to her background as a prosecutor. “Where we are right now, my focus has been on wanting to improve our current background check system,” she said. “Frankly, we have fallen down on actually prosecuting gun crimes and violations of our current background check system.”

She said that addressing mental health and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill were important going forward.

Outside groups are focusing on Ayotte and others from swing states where polls show background checks are popular. From the TV and radio ads to these small events, both sides are mobilizing like it's a political campaign --  Bloomberg's group circulated printed signs reading "#ShameOnYou" at both town meetings, while Ayotte supporters held the kind of mass-hand-drawn signs often spotted at presidential events.

Poll data is also a focus -- and a point of contention. Some automated polls, which NBC News does not rely on, have shown surveys claiming dropping numbers for people who voted against expanding background checks.

But in the Granite State, Ayotte's supporters are pointing to a recent survey from the University of New Hampshire that shows just the opposite: high approval ratings in the wake of the vote.

Some Republican defenders in the state say that the controversy isn't real and say it won't matter in 2016, when Ayotte is up for reelection to the Senate.

"To the extent it's a controversial issue it's a manufactured one," said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the state Republican Party.

There's evidence to support the claim that some groups are using the issue to raise their profiles. In a yard nearby the Warren event, a local resident had placed a large, staked lawn sign with the handwritten message, "Thank You Senator Ayotte." Atop one corner was the Tea Party's preferred flag, the yellow snake with the words "Don't Tread On Me."

But others say it was a difficult decision that could have repercussions down the road.

"I think it was a tough vote. And it was a principled vote," said Jim Merrill, a longtime New Hampshire Republican strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "And I think she understood that there would be some blowback for it. Let's just remember it wasn't just Republicans who voted against it."

Ayotte is clearly feeling the pressure, refusing to answer questions from national reporters at the meetings. Aides working on the gun issue on Capitol Hill say she's made it clear that she doesn't want to vote on it again any time soon.

And the atmosphere back home was a big change from Ayotte's typical town meetings -- generally staid affairs that begin with a PowerPoint presentation on the budget. (She does a lot of them, as she's pledged to hold a town hall in each New Hampshire county.)

She stuck with the PowerPoint at Tuesday's meetings, but this time, the opening slides had statistics defending her gun vote.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America enter the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte on April 17 in Washington, D.C.

At town halls, Ayotte typically receives notecards with the name of each questioner and their pre-submitted topic of interest. A selected moderator chooses and reads them. This time, though, that caused a stir. Right before Erica Lafferty spoke in Warren, Eric Knuffke, of Wentworth, N.H., stood and demanded to be allowed a question.

"You can't deny people the right to speak because they haven't filled out a card. I have a question," Knuffke shouted. Supporters of Ayotte shouted back at him.

As Knuffke yelled, Lafferty was sitting in the front row with her hand raised.

"Let Erica speak," said one attendee. "There's a Sandy Hook survivor here," said another.

She had submitted a question in the pile, and Ayotte made sure to let her speak. Lafferty thanked Ayotte for meeting with her the day after senators took the vote on the Manchin-Toomey before challenging her for her vote. After her exchange with Ayotte, Lafferty stood and stormed out of the town hall.

Asked afterward why she had done so, Lafferty said: "I had had enough." 

 NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:05 PM EDT

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford meets the Democrat looking to end his bid for political redemption, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, in a high-profile debate Monday evening, just one week before the May 7 special election that will send one of them to Congress.

Colbert Busch and Sanford will share a stage for their first and only debate ahead of next Tuesday's special election to fill the vacancy that occurred following then-Rep. Tim Scott's, R, appointment to the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Mic Smith / AP

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford speaks with reporters at Hay Tire & Automotive in Mount Pleasant, S.C., on Monday, April 22, 2013.

The campaign has attracted an intense amount of coverage in the national media because of the two candidates involved. Sanford, the former governor whose term ended in ignominy following an extramarital affair that resulted in his divorce and an ethics rebuke, is seeking a chance at political redemption. Standing in his way is Colbert Busch, the Clemson University administrator whose candidacy has been aided by the fame of her brother — political satirist Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central. 

While Sanford entered the showdown with an upper hand over Colbert Busch in this traditionally Republican district, the race was thrown into turmoil in recent weeks by Jenny Sanford, the former governor's ex-wife. She filed court documents accusing Sanford of trespassing on her property, thereby reviving some of the ugly, public 2009 divorce that ended the former two-term governor's possible aspirations to run for president. 

In the days following that revelation, Democrats and their allies went on the attack with television ads attacking Sanford. Republicans, meanwhile, retreated, forcing Sanford to fend for himself in the campaign when the National Republican Congressional Committee announced it would not run ads in the race. (The most recent poll, which was conducted by automated phone interviews, suggested Colbert Busch had the advantage over Sanford; NBC News does not officially recognize those polls.) Sanford has responded to his perceived slide by casting Colbert Busch as a handmaiden of Democrats' relatively unpopular leaders in Washington. Sanford went so far as to debate a cardboard cutout of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to illustrate his point.

Still, Monday's debate might offer the candidates their best chance to affect the trajectory of the race before voters head to the poll. Perhaps in a reflection of which way things are going, Sanford's demanded more debates — that is, more opportunities to ding Colbert Busch in public. The showdown will be broadcast on C-SPAN.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:44 PM EDT

NBCNews.com’s Michael O’Brien: “A seemingly mundane vote on Wednesday intended to help Republicans soften their image on the health care issue laid bare some of the still-raw divisions between the GOP’s pragmatists and the party’s more obstinate ideologues. House Republican leaders were forced to pull a vote on legislation designed as a prime opportunity to fuse conservative priorities with a proposal easily grasped by voters: improving coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. Conservative lawmakers fretted that the proposal would perpetuate an element of ‘Obamacare,’ and once again balked at supporting Republican leaders. The situation illustrated, again, the party leaders’ difficulty in managing some of the GOP’s most unruly conservatives.”

“The House of Representatives will spend 15% less on its own operations this year than it did three years ago under a cost-cutting effort launched by Speaker John Boehner that is on pace to have saved taxpayers more than $400 million by the end of this year,” USA Today says. “When Republicans took control of the House in January 2011, Boehner, the new speaker, said cutting House spending would be a priority. Since then, House lawmakers have seen a nearly 20% decrease in their office budgets. Three years ago, the average lawmaker had an annual $1.5 million budget, which is down to $1.2 million. Those budgets — which vary by office — cover everything from staff salaries to district office rent and bottled water.”

“With Congress and the flying public up in arms over airline delays caused by Federal Aviation Administration furloughs, lawmakers seem somehow caught off guard by the extent of the problem caused by the sequester,” Roll Call reports.

At 9:00 am ET, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform joins others to unveil a new Winston Group (R) poll showing support for comprehensive immigration reform.

A seemingly mundane vote on Wednesday intended to help Republicans soften their image on the health care issue laid bare some of the still-raw divisions between the GOP’s pragmatists and the party’s more obstinate ideologues.

House Republican leaders were forced to pull a vote on legislation designed as a prime opportunity to fuse conservative priorities with a proposal easily grasped by voters: improving coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. Conservative lawmakers fretted that the proposal would perpetuate an element of “Obamacare,” and once again balked at supporting Republican leaders. The situation illustrated, again, the party leaders’ difficulty in managing some of the GOP’s most unruly conservatives.

Alex Wong / Getty Images file photo

House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Va., the No. 2 Republican in the House, was the chief proponent of the now-shelved legislation, which would have reallocated money from the program’s prevention fund in order to beef up the insurance pool established for high-risk patients under “Obamacare.”

“We, in the House, remain committed to putting our conservative principles first to help people first,” Cantor said at a press conference with fellow Republican leaders.

Though President Barack Obama had threatened to veto the legislation, Republicans pursued it nonetheless to notch a positive, campaign-friendly vote for House lawmakers.

But Cantor’s office, which sets the schedule for the House floor, was forced to reverse course by Wednesday afternoon, and cancel a planned vote on the legislation when it became apparent that they would lack the necessary votes to advance the bill. (Most, if not all, Democrats intended to oppose the bill, meaning GOP leaders could afford to suffer few defections in their own ranks.

“We had good conversations with our members and made a lot of solid progress,” said Erica Elliot, a spokeswoman for House Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who explained many House Republicans were set to leave town to attend the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library on Thursday.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Cantor, said: “We intend to bring the bill back up when Congress returns in May.”

The Virginia Republican’s proposal had enjoyed the high-profile support of conservative organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Independent Women’s Voice, along with several other prominent conservative voices.

But the proposal angered conservatives, who complained that Cantor’s legislation would perpetuate an expensive part of the health reform law, and do nothing to halt the underlying legislation. The influential Club for Growth, which opposes the bill, said it would include lawmakers’ vote on its annual scorecard. Brent Bozell, a conservative figurehead who’s clashed often with the GOP establishment, dubbed the proposal “CantorCare.”

“It fixes part of Obamacare that the Democrats designed,” wrote Erick Erickson, editor of the influential conservative blog RedState. “It makes Obamacare less bad, more palatable, and more likely to stick around instead of collapsing under its own weight as Paul Ryan and others have kept saying it would.”

But the entire ordeal illustrated Republicans’ continued difficulties in finding the sweet spot between conservative consistency and the process of governing – a phenomenon within the GOP that extends well beyond Capitol Hill.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:24 PM EDT