CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The immigration reform proposal pending before Congress could be a dicey proposition for Republican presidential contenders come 2016, when they visit this first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Republicans in Washington are in virtual agreement that they must do more to broaden the party’s appeal to the increasingly influential bloc of Hispanic voters. And many of those GOP leaders argue that supporting an immigration reform law that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point.

But the party’s eventual standard-bearer in 2016 will likely have to run a gauntlet of primaries that begins with Iowa’s caucuses. And catering to the Hawkeye State’s voters could force White House hopefuls to the right – not just in 2016, but in deciding how to posture themselves toward the immigration reform law making its way through Congress this year.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Two senior members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation – longtime Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King – have been some of the most outspoken critics of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration overhaul currently making its way through the Senate committee process. Both dished out plenty of red meat to the party faithful during speeches at Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner.

“It gives amnesty to and legalizes everybody who's in America illegally today,” King said of the Senate proposal, invoking a word – amnesty – that reflects deep conservative trepidation toward immigration reform. “This bill destroys the rule of law, and it forever produces contempt for the rule of law.”

“We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. And, I want you to know, I learned a lesson, and I want you to know that I — and we — screwed up in 1986,” Grassley said. “The lesson learned: you reward illegality, and you get more of it.”

Their words amount to a caution sign for Republican presidential hopefuls with designs of competing in the Iowa caucuses in 2016.

Some Republicans, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican co-author of the Gang of Eight proposal, probably have no choice but to embrace the legislation and its path to citizenship because of their close involvement in its creation. And indeed, Rubio and his conservative cachet might help bring some conservatives on-board with the eventual bill.

“I think that he is one of the people that's been trying to work to find a reasonable approach toward that, that would secure our borders and would find a reasonable way to deal with people who have been here a long time,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, R, told NBC News. “I'm going to see what Marco Rubio says about it. I trust him.”

Other would-be Republican presidential candidates can afford to be more circumspect.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one such potential hopeful who’s previously called for immigration reform, told reporters in Iowa that the Senate bill needs tougher border-security provisions, especially for it to have any chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. To that end, Paul termed himself the “bridge” between the two chambers.

“I'm the bridge between people who won't consider it at all to people who want it,” he said. “I'm in the middle such that I'll vote for it if I think it'll do the right job and it creates border security, doesn't create a new pathway to citizenship, and allows people to get in an existing line, the same way someone in Mexico City would get in line.”

“So I think there's a lot of room for me to help the bill, but we'll see,” Paul added.

But it’s also easy to imagine at least one Republican contender running to the right on the issue of immigration in hopes of outflanking his competitors in Iowa. That temptation – and its repercussions – was on full display during the 2012 primaries, when Mitt Romney used immigration to run to the right of his primary challengers. But his comments during that drawn-out primary came back to haunt him during the general election, when Romney notched a record-low performance among Hispanic voters for a recent Republican presidential nominee.

Regardless of their stance, A.J. Spiker, the Iowa Republican Party’s chairman, cautioned White House hopefuls to be ready to answer questions about their approach to immigration come 2016.

“The one thing I think Republicans agree on, absolutely, on immigration is a secured border,” he said. “After that, you really do head off in some different directions.”

He added: “So what I believe is that whatever a candidate's position is, when they come to Iowa, they're going to have to explain their position to Iowa Republicans. They're going to have to explain why they supported X; why they supported X over Y.”

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Presidential elections start in Iowa. 

On Friday, Sen. Rand Paul put his stake in the ground for a possible run in 2016 by mocking the Obama administration and delivering a blistering critique of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The administration has been criticized for failing to provide security during the attack and for its characterization of the incident afterward.

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?"

Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has his photo taken with Linda Stikle of Anamosa, Iowa, after he spoke at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner on Friday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause.

Republicans' search for a candidate to deliver their first victory in a presidential election since 2004 began as Paul used the plum speaking slot to plant the seeds for his own possible bid. And he won his biggest applause by taking on Clinton, who's seen as the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Barack Obama.

Paul was just elected to the Senate in 2010 and is perhaps best known as the son of the former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose two campaigns for president attracted a fervent, grassroots following that might translate to his son.

But the Kentucky senator has been far from shy about stoking speculation about his own play for the Republican nomination in 2016. He told reporters earlier Friday that he had not made up his mind and would not decide until 2014.

The fundraiser on Friday had unmistakable overtones of a presidential campaign, though the last one ended just six months ago. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, captured that sentiment best in his speech preceding Paul's: "The process of selecting the next leader of the free world begins in Iowa, and it's already begun."

Paul's speech doubled at times as a comedy scene, as he seemed at ease before the crowd, stepping away from the podium, microphone in hand, to project a casual demeanor. He rattled off jokes about absurd pork-barrel projects, recalling the campaign style of Arizona Sen. John McCain as he ran for president in 2008.

But Paul also used his closely watched speech to offer his own prescriptions about the path forward for the Republican Party, which has been suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis since Mitt Romney lost to Obama in last fall's election.

On no issue is that crisis more clear than immigration. A bipartisan bill has advanced in the Senate to allow undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, but King and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, both railed against the proposal in their speeches before Paul's.

Paul has spoken in favor of some kind of immigration reform, a dicey topic before this Republican crowd, and he acknowledged those disagreements. But he also tried to align himself with King and Grassley — two of the most stalwart opponents of immigration reform.

"I'm also with Sen. Grassley and Congressman King on the fact that I think we were hoodwinked in 1968," he said, referencing the last time Congress passed a major immigration overhaul. "We were promised security, and it never came."

But Paul also said there's a "chance [he] could vote for the bill" if he can add amendments strengthening its border security measures.

Paul also spoke about broadening the party's appeal, namely to Latinos, African Americans and young voters.

"We're an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that aren't like us, don't look like us, don't wear the same clothes, that aren't exactly who we are," he said. "We're going to have to do something."

Related stories

• Clinton remains GOP focus as administration defends Benghazi talking points
• Iowa governor to 2016 hopefuls: 'Come early and often'

Two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two highly publicized gay-marriage cases, a majority of Americans continue to say they support same-sex marriage, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. 

Fifty-three percent of respondents favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, which is up 2 points since the NBC/WSJ survey last asked this question in December, though that increase is within the poll’s margin of error.

Forty-two percent oppose gay marriage – also up 2 points since late last year.

By party, 73 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents back gay marriage, while 66 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Strikingly, nearly 8-in-10 respondents (79 percent) say they know or work with someone who is gay or lesbian, which is an increase of 14 points since December and 17 points since 2004.

However, only 15 percent say that knowing or working with someone gay makes them more likely to back same-sex marriage; 4 percent say it makes them less likely to support it, and more than half say it doesn’t make a difference.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images file photo

Equal rights supporters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments March 26, in California's proposition 8, the controversial ballot initiative that defines marriage only between a man and a woman.

These numbers come after numerous Democratic politicians, plus a handful of Republicans, have recently announced their support for gay marriage. They also come as the Supreme Court is expected to decide two different cases this summer – one on the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law which prohibits the government from recognizing gay marriages performed in states where they are legal, and the other on California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in that state.

The poll also finds that 63 percent of respondents believe the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages in states where they are legal, and 56 percent think that the question of allowing gay marriage should be left to a federal standard rather than to the states.

In reversal, majority thinks abortion should be illegal
At the same time that general support for gay marriage has increased – albeit within the margin of error – so has opposition to abortion.

According to the survey, a combined 52 percent say that abortion should be illegal either with exceptions or without them, versus a combined 45 percent who say it should be legal either “always” or “most of the time.”

This is a reversal from the NBC/WSJ poll in January, when a majority – for the first time – said abortion should be legal in some form or fashion.

Measuring the values debate
The poll also gauges public sentiment on other questions involving social and moral issues.

Asked to choose what should be a more important goal for society – either promoting greater respect for traditional values or encouraging greater tolerance – 50 percent picked traditional values, and 44 selected greater tolerance.

That’s a significant change from when this question was last asked in 1999, when 60 percent chose traditional values and 29 percent sided with tolerance.

Notably, this movement toward tolerance comes from Democrats and self-described independents – but not from Republicans. (In 1999, 76 percent of Republicans said promoting traditional values was a more important goal vs. 77 percent say that now.)

In another change, half of respondents (50 percent) say that society’s most serious problems stem primarily from economic and financial pressures.

View full poll results here

But in past NBC/WSJ polls – in 1994 and 1996 – majorities said those problems came mainly from a decline in moral values.

And Americans give the Democratic and Republican parties either mixed or poor marks when it comes to social and cultural issues.

By 47 percent to 22 percent, respondents say they disagree with the GOP’s approach to social and cultural issues, and they disagree with Democrats by a 38-percent-to-37 percent margin.

On the parties’ approach to looking out for the middle class, the numbers are even worse – they disagree with Republicans by 51 percent to 24 percent, and with Democrats by 42 percent to 33 percent.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

In the midst of their effort to broaden the party’s appeal, Republican leaders continue to engage – sometimes forcefully – on social issues that have sometimes turned off key voting blocs in the past.

The Republican National Committee’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” report issued last month recommended that the party be more “inclusive and welcoming,” warning that doing otherwise would “limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues.”

But Republican leaders – who face pressure from the party’s Christian conservative base to hold the line on social issues – have hardly disengaged from social issues.

Look no further than Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor this fall in his state, who last week asked a full federal appeals court to overturn a three-judge panel’s ruling that Virginia’s anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

Cuccinelli’s decision to appeal appears to be related to preserving state laws against sex with minors, but it has the effect of asking the courts to uphold all of Virginia’s anti-sodomy statutes. To that end, the appeal has been characterized by Cuccinelli detractors as an effort to keep laws against gay sex on Virginia’s books.

A spokeswoman for the Virginia attorney general's office insists that the move is about protecting kids from sexual predators. "This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17-year-old girl from a 47-year-old sexual predator," said Caroline Gibson.

“Ken Cuccinelli continues to ignore the economy and instead focus on a divisive ideological agenda,” wrote Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, on Twitter.

Cuccinelli’s appeal, though, is symptomatic of how Republicans have been drawn into social issues, and often to their peril.

Another example came on Wednesday as Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who commissioned the inclusivity-seeking Growth and Opportunity Project, took to the conservative blog RedState to complain that the mainstream media had mischaracterized abortion laws in North Dakota and Florida.

Priebus argued that the media had unfairly maligned conservatives in their coverage of the laws, which (respectively) sought to ban abortion after a heartbeat is detected, and provide medical coverage to a newborn from a failed abortion.

Moreover, Priebus launched into an attack on Planned Parenthood – a standby criticism of the last Republican presidential campaign – accusing it of supporting “infanticide,” and demanding that Democrats answer for their support for the organization.

Steve Helber / Steve Helber / AP file photo

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli last week asked a full federal appeals court to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that Virginia's anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

“In the last election, Republicans were repeatedly asked about whether they supported cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. It’s time Democrats are asked whether they still support funding an organization that refuses to care for a newborn,” Priebus wrote. “And this case of blatant media bias — cover-up really — should also be cause for some thoughtful self-examination among journalists.”

These strong stances by Cuccinelli and Priebus come amid the overarching GOP effort to broaden the party’s support among Latinos, young voters and women. The GOP report acknowledges at several points the role played by harsh rhetoric on social issues like gay rights in exacerbating the party’s deficit among those groups.

And a new poll released on Wednesday showed that there’s still work to be done. On the question of overall party images, and which party cares more about the average American, Democrats enjoy an advantage over Republicans among women.

Twenty-five percent of women said they had a favorable view of the GOP in the Quinnipiac University poll, versus 42 women who said they had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Fifty-three percent of women had a negative opinion of the Republican Party, versus 38 percent of women who said they had a negative impression of the Democratic Party.

Women also favored Democrats on the matter of which party better cared for needs and problems of people like them. Women respondents agreed, 59 percent to 38 percent, that Democrats cared for their needs and concerns; 35 percent of women said that Republicans cared for their needs and concerns, versus 60 percent of women who disagreed.

More broadly, Democrats also enjoy an advantage over Republicans on the question of which party better handles the issue of same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent of all Americans said that Democrats do a better job, versus 28 percent who prefer Republicans. Independents favor Democrats, 48 percent to 26 percent, on that question, and even one in five Republicans — 21 percent — prefer Democrats’ handling of the issue of same-sex marriage. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

Related:

Top Va. Republican urges court to keep anti-sodomy law on the books

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

North Dakota governor signs toughest anti-abortion package in US

This story was originally published on Thu Apr 4, 2013 5:06 AM EDT

Democrats are relishing in a surprising opportunity to possibly pick up a House seat in a solidly Republican district in South Carolina, where Mark Sanford is hoping to stage a political comeback next month.

Sanford, the embattled former governor who left office in 2011 under a cloud of scandal following an extramarital affair that publicly wrecked his marriage, officially won the Republican nomination for the May 7 special election to fill the vacancy in South Carolina’s 1st congressional district. He beat rival Republican Curtis Bostic in a runoff election with about 57 percent of the vote.

Though Sanford represented this reliably GOP district for three terms in the 1990s, he faces a tougher-than-expected challenge from Democratic nominee Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, a Clemson University administrator and the sister of Comedy Central personality Stephen Colbert.

For Sanford, a onetime conservative rock star who had once flirted with the possibility of seeking the Republican presidential nomination, next month’s special election is a shot at redemption, both personal and political. His 2009 admission of an affair with an Argentinian woman, María Belén Chapur, and bizarre subsequent explanations of his absence to pursue that affair, nearly ruined his career and left a lasting negative impression with voters that could help Colbert-Busch score an unlikely victory.

An internal poll released by the Colbert-Busch campaign earlier this week showed the Democrat leading Sanford by three points – within the poll’s margin of error, but still noteworthy for its reflection of a competitive race in this district that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won last fall by 18 points.

Sanford, speaking Wednesday on “Morning Joe,” argued that Colbert-Busch’s ability to skate to the Democratic nomination as he endured a competitive Republican primary, helped explain those numbers.

“I think that when people really begin to digest those ideas – some real strong contrasts in terms of where she would be versus where I would be – that's going to substantially change a poll that, right now, simply defines name ID as people know it, not issue ID,” he said. “And ultimately, I think debates and campaigns are ultimately decided on issues.”

Colbert-Busch benefits, too, from her brother’s celebrity and heightened media interest in the campaign. It’s for that reason that Republicans in Washington said Wednesday that they are watching the race closely, and refuse to take for granted a seat that Democrats haven’t held since 1981.

Both Republicans and Democrats generally admit that the race might not be as close if not for Sanford, and the baggage associated with his affair. But GOP sources also contend that Colbert-Busch has managed to escape most scrutiny, and that the district’s Republican-leaning voters will end up with Sanford once his Democratic opponent’s views are fully litigated over the course of the next month.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which is tasked with electing GOP candidates to the House, for instance on Wednesday chided Colbert-Busch for campaigning while continuing to remain on-staff at Clemson.

Bruce Smith / AP

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford leaves the voting booth after voting at his precinct in Charleston, S.C., on Tuesday, April 2, 2013.

“Why should South Carolina taxpayers have to foot the bill for Elizabeth Colbert Busch to campaign for Congress? We already knew Colbert Busch supported Obama and Pelosi’s big-spending policies, but now she’s taken her disregard for the taxpayers to a new low,” said NRCC spokeswoman Katie Prill.

(Clemson says the NRCC's characterization is incorrect, and that Colbert-Busch is not on the state payroll at the moment. Her annual leave, to which she is entitled, ended on March 26. "Elizabeth Colbert Busch is not on the state payroll in South Carolina. She took a leave of absence from her job at Clemson University the day she filed for office," said John Gouch, the school's assistant director of media relations.)

The ultimate test of both parties’ commitment might come in the form of a check cut by the NRCC or its Democratic counterpart, the DCCC. Both sides maintain that they have not yet decided whether to spend money on television ads in this coastal South Carolina district, which could help swing the race toward either candidate.

Meanwhile, Democrats are eager to have Sanford available as a public face of the GOP over the next month, if not more. South Carolina Democrats on Wednesday eagerly reminded reporters of the letter written by state Republican lawmakers (including now-U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R) to Sanford in 2009, which asked for his resignation (Sanford declined). The letter called Sanford’s actions during his affair an example of “poor decision making and questionable leadership.”

Sanford’s bid for a comeback also comes as Republicans nationally seek to overhaul their image, and broaden the GOP’s appeal among Hispanics, young voters and women – three groups among whom the party suffered during last fall’s election.

“The last thing they [Republicans] need is Mark Sanford to be their public face,” a Democratic campaign source said in anticipation of the bruising – and increasingly nationalized – campaign set to play out over the next few weeks.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 3, 2013 1:34 PM EDT

A Republican congressman from Alaska on Thursday used a slur referring to immigrants, particularly Mexicans, in an interview with a public radio station in his home state.

Amid a hot-button debate in Washington over how to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, Rep. Don Young, a 21-term lawmaker, referred to immigrant workers as "wetbacks" — a term that could threaten to inflame the debate about immigration reform.

"My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," Young said in an interview with radio station KRBD. He was discussing the number of jobs that have been made irrelevant due to advances in automation. 

"It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine," Young added.

While the veteran congressman wasn't referring directly to immigration reform, his remarks certainly cut against the broader Republican effort to repair the party's dismal image with Latino voters.

Becky Bohrer / AP

U.S. Rep. Don Young addresses a rally in front of the state Capitol on Thursday in Juneau, Alaska.

"Wetback" is a derogatory term for migrant workers, particularly Mexicans or Mexican-Americans who now reside in the United States.

In a statement, Young said he "meant no disrespect" in using the word.

“During a sit down interview with Ketchikan Public Radio this week, I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California," the statement said.

"I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect.

“Migrant workers play an important role in America’s workforce, and earlier in the said interview, I discussed the compassion and understanding I have for these workers and the hurdles they face in obtaining citizenship. America must once and for all tackle the issue of immigration reform.” 

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:30 AM EDT

Want a sense of the scope of the GOP's internal divide between conservatives and the party establishment? Take a look at some recent poll numbers that paint a fuller picture of just how many of the Republican Party's core elements object to the direction of the party.

A CBS News poll released Tuesday evening found what most other polls have recently: the Republican Party suffers from a negative impression among most Americans.

Sixty percent of all U.S. adults, the CBS poll found, have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, versus 31 percent who have a favorable opinion of the GOP.

Democrats, expectedly, have strongly negative opinions toward Republicans; self-described independents are also sour on the GOP, 60 to 24 percent.

A closer look inside the numbers, though, tells the deeper story.

One in four self-described Republicans, 25 percent, also said in the CBS poll that they had a negative opinion of their own party – an ominous sign as the GOP searches for a pathway back to electoral success.

Much of the news about efforts to remake the party, such as the Republican National Committee's new "Growth and Opportunity Project," have been confined to an inside-the-Beltway audience. Much of the outreach called for by the report has yet to take place, making any improvement in voters' impression of the party a lagging indicator.

Moreover, the GOP's internal angst might not necessarily be surprising given the party is still reeling from its loss in a second consecutive presidential election. More recently, party leaders cut a deal that allowed taxes to rise -- a prospect that's anathema to the Republican base.

The CBS poll doesn't offer more detailed breakdowns, but looking inside the internal numbers of the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll late last month and a CNN/ORC poll released in mid-March offer clues to the source of internal Republican discord.

Both polls found that blanket "Republicans" had a slightly more favorable opinion of the Republican Party than in the CBS poll. The NBC/WSJ poll, conducted in late February, found that 63 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, versus 15 percent who expressed a negative impression; 21 percent of self-described GOPers were neutral. Similarly, 82 percent of Republicans rated the party favorably in the CNN poll, versus 14 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of the GOP.

It's among conservatives where opinion turns against the Republican Party establishment.

Less than half of self-identified conservatives -- 48 percent -- expressed a favorable opinion of the Republican Party in the February NBC/WSJ poll. Twenty-six percent of conservatives had a negative opinion of the party of which they ostensibly serve as the base, and a quarter -- 25 percent -- were neutral.

The CNN poll includes similar numbers; that poll, which was conducted from March 15-17, found that 58 percent of self-identified conservatives have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, versus 36 percent who hold an unfavorable impression.

The numbers cut to the core of the GOP's identity crisis. Party leaders wish to broaden the party's appeal and, on some issues (like immigration reform), move toward the political center. That extends to primary elections, in which the GOP establishment hopes to re-assert itself, and avoid instances where unelectable conservatives sometimes topple candidates regarded as more electable in the general election.

To be sure, too, these numbers don't necessarily suggest that conservatives are so disaffected that they would stay home in general election contests. Even the most critical of conservatives eventually came around last fall to supporting Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

But these numbers suggest that the party's right flank -- the heart and soul of the Republican Party -- haven't bought in. And until they do, a transformation of the party will be that much more difficult.

Historic gay rights cases arrive at the Supreme Court this week as even opponents of same-sex marriage acknowledge that public opinion has shifted against them.

Vote now: March Madness - Senatorial edition

As the court prepares for oral arguments in two cases – one challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the other challenging the 1990s-era Defense of Marriage Act – the trickle of support among political leaders for marriage rights for gays and lesbians has continued to grow.

Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ralph Reed, the head of the socially conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition, admitted that the political divide over same-sex marriage was “basically a jump ball.”

“It's clearly moved,” Reed said of popular opinion, though he disputed any notion that Americans have come to universally back same-sex marriage.

But the shifting politics appear to be accelerating even more quickly. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally announced her support for same-sex marriage a few weeks ago, the announcement was met in some quarters by surprise – usually that Clinton hadn’t made such a pronouncement already.

On the cusp of this week’s oral arguments – and, potentially, a Supreme Court decision later this June dramatically expanding gay rights – more political notables have announced their support for marriage rights. 

Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat representing swing state Virginia, wrote on his Facebook page on Monday that he now backs gay marriage "because it is the fair and right thing to do." 

 "Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone," he wrote. 

Warner's comments came the day after Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from GOP-leaning Missouri, also announced her support for same-sex marriage. 

“My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long-term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality,” McCaskill wrote Sunday evening on her tumblr page.

Missouri is one of 38 states that prohibits same-sex marriage, either through legislation, ballot initiative or state constitutional amendment. Those state-level prohibitions could still stand in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling, depending on how expansive the court’s eventual decision might be.

It’s also banned in Ohio, where Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s endorsement of same-sex marriage rights (prompted by his own son having come out as gay) earlier this month served as an even bigger watershed moment. Nine whole years after President George W. Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Portman – a member of the Bush administration, and a serious contender for the GOP’s vice presidential nomination in 2012 – had offered high-profile support to same-sex marriage.

Moreover, Bush’s own former political adviser, Karl Rove, said this weekend on ABC that he could envision a Republican candidate (though not necessarily the nominee) for president in 2016 supporting same-sex marriage. Already, Jon Huntsman, a 2012 contender for the GOP nod who could seek the nomination again in 2016, has announced his support for marriage rights.

And while the shift might hearten gays and lesbians who hope to marry their partners, the tide toward supporting same-sex marriage is certainly driven in part by political considerations. Fifty-one percent of Americans nationwide said in December’s NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that they now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Just 30 percent of Americans backed marriage rights in spring of 2004, by comparison.

Republicans’ post-election autopsy last week noted, for instance, that “certain social issues are turning off young voters.”

“Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be,” the report read.

Political leaders looking to complete their political “evolution” on gay marriage (to borrow a phrase from how President Barack Obama described his own shift toward backing marriage rights) could receive political cover this summer. A Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalizes same-sex marriage across the country – a possible outcome, though not necessarily the likely one – could hasten the number of lawmakers who feel comfortable to publicly back same-sex marriage, or at the very least, abandon it as a wedge issue.

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report. 

There’s been plenty of talk among Washington Republicans about the need to recruit better candidates, the kind who will avoid cringe-worthy campaign moments that did in several GOP candidates last fall, and weighed down the party nationwide.

But there are already several conservatives gearing up for high-profile races over the next two years who threaten to stop that effort in its tracks.

Following the missteps of candidates like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock – the Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana, respectively, who lost winnable Senate races after making roundly criticized comments about rape – establishment Republicans have been far more vocal about the need to rein in primary processes that produced such nominees.

The fact that 2012’s mistakes were not an aberration compounded Republicans’ worries. The same Tea Party fervor that produced rock stars like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio yielded Republican Senate nominees like Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck and Sharron Angle – GOP candidates regarded as having squandered good pickup opportunities in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada.

This week’s Republican National Committee report recommending ways to strengthen the party came out and said it bluntly: “Groupthink is an issue.”

But in races like this fall’s gubernatorial campaign in Virginia – along with several high-profile state races next fall – will offer direct tests of whether the GOP can finally navigate the narrow strait between conservative allegiance and electability in the general election.

The most immediate test will come this fall in Virginia, where Ken Cuccinelli is the candidate looking to keep the governor’s mansion in Republican hands for two consecutive terms for the first time since the mid-1990s.

Cuccinelli has long been a favorite of conservatives, having used his current office as state attorney general to launch court challenges to President Barack Obama’s health-care law. His reservoir of support on the right helped push Virginia’s relatively more moderate lieutenant governor, Bill Bolling, out of the race. (Bolling subsequently weighed running as an independent candidate, but decided against it.)

And already, Cuccinelli has run his race in swing-state Virginia as an unabashed conservative. (His campaign-year manifesto, appropriately, is entitled “No Apologies.”) Whether that tack will work in a state that’s drifted toward the political middle – represented best by Obama’s wins there in 2008 and 2012 – is very much an open question, one which will be answered this fall.

Already, likely Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s campaign has revived a familiar playbook against Cuccinelli, seizing every opportunity to cast him as out-of-step with Virginia voters. The latest example came this week when a Democratic tracker released a video of Cuccinelli appearing to compare slavery to abortion during a speech last summer.

"Over time, the truth demonstrates its own rightness, and its own righteousness," Cuccinelli says in the clip. "Our experience as a country has demonstrated that on one issue after another. Start right at the beginning -- slavery. Today, abortion."

The McAuliffe campaign pounced.

“His comments reflect a career-long focus on an extreme ideological agenda that has nothing to do with Virginians’ top concern: the economy,” the Democratic candidate said. “Politicians who constantly create controversy on divisive social issues harm Virginia’s standing as one of the best states for business.”

And, looking ahead to some of next year’s campaigns, there are other GOP candidates who could follow in Cuccinelli’s steps and pose a challenge to Republicans’ efforts to seek out pitch-perfect nominees to wage successful campaigns in swing states.

Steve Helber / AP file photo

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gestures as he talks about the Supreme Court decision on the health-care law during a press conference Thursday, June 28, 2012 in Richmond, Va.

In Iowa, Rep. Steve King has an inside track to the Republican nomination in next year’s Senate race, where he’ll be looking to pick up a seat for the GOP following the retirement of Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. He survived a competitive re-election campaign last fall, an experience which he said hadn’t caused him to back off of his brand of unflinching conservatism. 

“I went through the toughest election of my life last fall. I had tracking cameras around me from St. Patrick’s Day through Nov. 6 … always focused on me, trying to get a second or a minute that they could use against me in an ad,” King said in his speech last week before CPAC, the gathering of conservative activists. “They’re in the business of trying to undermine and weaken us, and I didn’t back up on any principle.” 

Republicans are also nervously watching Michigan, where they’re trying to avoid the missteps of 2012, when Senate nominee Pete Hoekstra doomed his campaign early on with a racially-charged ad targeting Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. 

Already, several Republicans have bowed out from the race, easing the path for the libertarian-minded Rep. Justin Amash, should he decide to seek the nomination. Though his conservatism isn’t necessarily in the mold of Cuccinelli or King, Amash would almost certainly face the same efforts from Democrats looking to cast him as too conservative for the Great Lakes State. 

Just in his second term, Amash has exhibited a repeated willingness to ruffle fellow Republicans’ feathers, so much that he ended up being one of the four House Republicans stripped of their committee assignments by the GOP leadership this year. He told National Review in December that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would not be welcome in his district. And Amash was one of the lawmakers Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., last week called “wacko birds” for their opposition to the Obama administration’s drone policy.

Amash was one of 10 Republicans who, on Thursday, voted against Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2014 budget because it didn’t go far enough in cutting spending. Another was Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, a deeply conservative Republican who’s the only officially announced GOP candidate in the state’s Senate race. 

He said in an interview earlier this month that his fellow Republicans aren’t doing enough to repeal Obamacare, despite the repeated votes to repeal part or all of the law. (It inevitably dies in the Senate, or would face a veto from Obama.) 

“There are a lot of Republicans who call themselves conservatives, who, in fact, are not,” Broun said. “We need to continue to, every few weeks, have a bill on the floor to repeal pieces of Obamacare as well as votes to repeal the whole law. President Obama will not sign a bill, but that’s the point.”

Related:

GOP report calls for sweeping reforms to compete in 2016

Three days, two breakout stars and one Big Gulp: Eight takeaways from CPAC

'We have to compete': GOP assesses path back to power

The Republican Party’s internal struggle over how to expand its reach will play out in stark relief at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, with activists locked in a near-civil war over the basic question of who should be part of the movement – and who should not.

This year’s meeting has already made news with its exclusion of notable names from the invite list: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. 

There will be plenty of conservative stars, like Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with 2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan (among other potential 2016 presidential candidates). And attendees will have a chance to reacquaint themselves with familiar names and faces from the not-so-distant past such as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and the ubiquitous Donald Trump.

But the annual conservative confab comes at a serious and crucial moment for the Republican Party: Its last two presidential nominees lost decisively to President Barack Obama, and its lone instrument of power -- the GOP majority in the House -- has been constantly plagued by infighting between conservative insurgents and its establishment-minded leadership.

And the American right seems as divided as ever over the path forward.

“I think, increasingly, we as Republicans have come across as intolerant and unfocused on the needs of the underserved,” said Fred Malek, a fixture of GOP politics for decades.

“And we need to speak much more to the aspirational needs of people, and not speak about the dependence of the ‘47 percent,’” he added, referencing 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s infamous comments, “but rather how the ‘47 percent’ become part of the 25 percent or 10 percent or 1 percent.”

Ideological fealty to marginalize GOP?
That internal struggle threatens to spill into the open at CPAC, a gathering that has been established as an important gathering for official Republicans, yet still attracts the kind of stalwart conservative activists who have helped to ignite this GOP family feud. 

“I thought it was a mistake to exclude Christie,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman who remains active in the party’s political leadership. “It reinforces this narrow, closed stereotype of Republicans.”

Christie angered conservatives by agreeing to implement insurance exchanges under Obama’s health care reform law, and for praising the president’s handling of Hurricane Sandy just days before the election. McDonnell upset conservatives with his new transportation law, which includes some new taxes.

“I would argue that they do not have too much to offer up in terms of the future of the conservative movement,” Jeff Bell, of the American Principles Project, said of the two governors.

Those warring views cut to the heart of the modern GOP’s internal rift. On one side are conservatives who are eager to excommunicate Republicans who commit the slightest act of ideological heresy. The other faction is composed of Republicans who worry that the party’s insistence on ideological fealty will continue to marginalize the GOP amid a changing electorate.

Though no immediate resolution is in sight, the Republican National Committee will weigh in following its own autopsy of the party’s shortcomings during last fall’s elections. It will recommend improved digital operations and a more robust outreach, but is also expected to emphasize the need for some candidates to speak in less shrill terms about sensitive issues.

“We can’t run the same campaigns. For some, it means that boneheaded comments about rape and women – that’s just not going to fly,” said a source familiar with the report, referencing GOP Senate candidates in Indiana and Missouri who lost winnable races last fall due to their controversial comments about rape.

Romney's first remarks since election
The forthcoming RNC report and this week’s CPAC gathering add up to a potentially pivotal week for the future of the party.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters file photo

Sen. Marco Rubio addresses the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, February 9, 2012.

And though McDonnell and Christie were excluded from the gathering, other corners of the GOP will be well-represented. Tea Party darlings like Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will each speak.

Also on display will be conservatives who may hope to unify the GOP as the party’s presidential nominee in 2016. Along with Rubio, Paul and Ryan, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will also address attendees.

The influential conference concludes with an oft-hyped, closely watched straw poll of attendees’ preference in a presidential nominee.

A past winner of two such straw polls, Romney, will make his first public speech since the election on Friday. And former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose national star power has waxed and waned in the scope of a single presidential election cycle, will speak on Saturday.

“There’s going to be a lot of heat, but not much light,” on the presidential front said Craig Shirley, a Reagan biographer and conservative PR guru. “It’s not going to resolve itself until the first stirrings of the 2014 midterm elections.”

Related:

On eve of CPAC, GOP searches for identity, policy principles

Obama's meeting with GOP: Cordial, but no consensus

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:31 AM EDT

This story was originally published on Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:37 AM EST

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.