Will Rubio’s push into welfare reform make him a pariah on the right all over again?

Toby Melville / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A senior scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation was quick to criticize Sen. Marco Rubio's new anti-poverty proposals in an interview Wednesday — an early sign that the Florida senator's new push to help the poor could land him in hot water with his party's right wing again.

Speaking in the ornate Lyndon B. Johnson room at the Capitol, Rubio declared the "War on Poverty" that was launched 50 years ago by LBJ a failure, and outlined his own plan to combat poverty and income inequality. His two central policy proposals included transferring the money used to fund existing federal anti-poverty programs to a "flex fund" for the states, and replacing the earned income tax credit with a wage subsidy.

"The erosion of equal opportunity is among the greatest threats to our exceptionalism as a nation," Rubio said. "But it also provides us with an exciting and historic opportunity: to help more people than ever achieve the American dream."

Reached for comment by BuzzFeed immediately after the speech, senior Heritage scholar Robert Rector trashed Rubio's proposals, saying the wage subsidy "doesn't really change much of anything," and calling the flex fund "an extraordinarily bad idea."

While Rubio argues that states should have the flexibility to address their own unique problems — "The poverty found in rural areas has some characteristics that are very different from the poverty found in inner cities," he said — Rector contended that giving states power to create their own programs would simply enable local bureaucracies, particularly in liberal states, to undermine reforms.

"The idea that what you want to do is collect money at the federal government level and hand it out to states is the exact wrong way to produce conservative policies," he said.

Rector went on to argue that the success of the 1996 welfare reforms — which he played a key role in crafting — was due to the federal requirement that "states run aggressive work programs." He worried Rubio's plan would give too much money to states without strict guidelines as to how it can be used.

(Rector's position is not universally accepted on the right; conservative activist Grover Norquist, among others, have advocated giving states more autonomy in fighting poverty and dispensing welfare.)

Rector was also critical of Rubio for saying widening income gap, while not the sole driver of economic strife in America, is "startling" and "deserve[s] attention." Echoing the arguments of many conservatives, Rector said income inequality is "largely irrelevant" and that the focus should be on helping the poor break into the middle class, regardless of how much money the rich are making.

"The war on poverty has been a complete catastrophe because welfare discourages work and sabotages marriage," Rector said. "And what you need to do is fix those problems."

The conservative reviews of Rubio's speech — like the legislation he has outlined — are still largely unwritten. But Heritage, whose political arm led the charge against Rubio's immigration proposals last year and helped spark a right-wing revolt, could be a thorn the senator's side if it mobilizes against him. While it's highly unlikely Rubio's anti-poverty measures will get the same legislative traction as his immigration bill, his aides say he plans to spend much of this year working on the issue. And as he looks toward the Republican presidential primaries in 2016, Rubio isn't eager to make more conservative enemies.

Congressional conservatives are split on the new Israeli policy that allows the government pay for abortions for women between the ages of 20–33, with many quiet, but others critical. “The truth is it’s something that breaks my heart,” Rep. Trent Franks says.

mariusz_prusaczyk/mariusz_prusaczyk

WASHINGTON — Israel adopted this week one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, and will now provide government funding for non-medical abortions for Israeli women aged 20 to 33.

But Washington's most anti-abortion lawmakers are largely silent on the new policy. These same members of Congress are also some of Israel's loudest defenders, highlighting a peculiar aspect of the relationship between many of Israel's ardent U.S. supporters and Israel's domestic political landscape.

Last month, a health ministry panel in Israel recommended the state pay for the abortions of women aged 20 to 33, including non-medical abortions. The measure was adopted this week, and will cost the state annually about $4.6 million. Unlike in the United States, abortion is relatively non-controversial in the country.

"They are sovereign nation they can do as they wish," Sen. Lindsey Graham said of the policy. "That won't happen in America."

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson, among others, declined to weigh in on the law citing unfamiliarity, while Sen. Ted Cruz referred BuzzFeed to his press office. A Cruz spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

"I don't really feel qualified to talk about what Israel should be doing on abortion," said Sen. John McCain.

The office of Majority Leader Eric Cantor did not respond to a request for comment. And Rep. Chris Smith, who heads up the congressional anti-abortion caucus and has called Israel America's "closest ally," did not respond to several requests for comment to his office.

Smith has weighed in on international abortion law before, primarily regarding a change to Kenya's constitution allowing for abortion in cases in which the mother's health is at risk. He charged in 2010 that the Obama administration had used taxpayer funds to lobby for the change. Smith has called abortion "a serious, lethal violation of fundamental human rights."

Rep. Trent Franks, who chairs the Israel Allies Caucus in the House, was one of the few members BuzzFeed spoke with who was aware of Israel's abortion policies. Franks is also one of the most outspoken anti-abortion politicians in Congress.

"The truth is it's something that breaks my heart, that a country that I love as much as I do would take such a position," Franks said. "It's one of the greatest heartbreaks to me about Israel is their position on protecting innocent life. In the final analysis, it weakens Israel profoundly as a nation and weakens us as a human family when we don't have the clarity and commitment to protect the most innocent among us."

"This comes from someone who loves Israel with all of his heart and they know that
I've chaired the Israel allies caucus here for years and let me just say to you no one loves Israel more than I do," he added. "But I hold the position that the same thing that makes me care about other countries — it's the people and if we exclude certain members among us, isn't that really the genesis of most of the wars among us?"

Rep. Steve King said the law was "news to him" but said it "saddens me to learn that they devalue life to that point."

"To compel taxpayers anywhere to pay for abortion is wrong," he said. "I think abortion itself is immoral and wrong, but to compel taxpayers to fund it is also wrong. … We've got a president who has promoted and encouraged federal funding for abortion. It's hard to take a moral stand and tell Israel what they can and can't do when you've got a country that's being led the way ours is."

The United States sends about $3 billion per year in military aid to Israel, but neither Franks nor King was worried that that any of that money was fungible. A long-standing amendment explicitly prevents any U.S. aid from paying for abortion services.

Christian and anti-abortion groups in the U.S are opposed to Israel's new law, but their response has been fairly muted. Several groups did send statements in response to a request for comment from BuzzFeed.

The Family Research Council has strongly supported Israel and helped facilitate various trips to the country for conservative members of Congress.

"Providing abortions free-of-charge, in any country, is an egregious offense against the sanctity of human life. Abortion proponents say that they want to make abortion 'safe, legal and rare' but the more a government funds abortion the higher the abortion rates go," said Arina Grossu, director of the Center for Human Dignity at FRC in an email. "In the United States, according to a 2007 Guttmacher report, the Hyde Amendment ban on federal funding for abortion has prevented between 18-35% of women from having an abortion. In other words, unrestricted federal funding for abortion will increase the number of women obtaining an abortion by an average of 25%. We can assume we will see similar results in Israel. No government should invest its money into killing its own citizens."

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, said in a statement that "government power should never be used to end life and harm women."

"We call on the Health Ministry to reject this proposed anti-life change in favor of real health-care that preserves life and protects women," she said. "This change would come at a time when we are learning so much more about the dangers of abortions for women who could be placed at risk themselves by a policy that is far too cavalier and short-sighted."

AUL has gotten directly involved in international abortion policy before: The group had previously filed an amicus brief with the Mexico Supreme Court urging the country to overturn their abortion law.

Jacob Fischler contributed reporting to this story.

Although the Utah governor and attorney general attempted to clarify the situation for the couples on Wednesday, the questions — and, likely, lawsuits — are just beginning.

Same-sex couples, accompanied by their friends and family members, line up to get marriage licenses at the Salt Lake County Government Building in Salt Lake City, Utah, Dec. 23, 2013.

Jim Urquhart / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The fate of Utah's nearly 1,400 legally married same-sex couples is still unclear as the state challenges a ruling that overturned Utah's ban on marriage between same-sex couples.

It's been less than 20 days since U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby declared Utah's 2004 ban to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court on Monday stopped Shelby's order from going into effect while Utah appeals the case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals; the state's first brief is due by Jan. 27.

Shelby's order had been in effect for two weeks, though, and now questions abound over the status of the same-sex couples who married in Utah while it was legal from Dec. 20, 2013, through Monday.

The Supreme Court action ended new marriages from taking place for the time being. But Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes on Wednesday went further, saying the 1,360 couples' marriages were "on hold," per a statement from Herbert's office, and would not be recognized by the state while the Supreme Court stay is in effect.

This is not an altogether surprising decision by the officials. Utah's marriage amendment does not only ban same-sex couples from marrying in the state; it also bans the state from recognizing such marriages. Because the Supreme Court stay effectively puts the marriage amendment back on the books, it prevents recognition of the very marriages the state granted over the past weeks.

Nonetheless, several questions remain unanswered and some have been made more confusing by the very statements of Herbert and Reyes.

Both officials made clear in their statements that they were not invalidating or nullifying the marriages at this time. Herbert's office, in a letter from his chief of staff, stated that "this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages – that is for the courts to decide." Reyes said in his statement, "We are unable to reach a legal conclusion as to the ultimate validity of marriage between persons of the same sex who completed their marriage ceremony in Utah between Dec. 20, 2013 and Jan. 6, 2014. That question remains unanswered and the answer will depend on the result of the appeal process."

The couples, in other words, are in a legal limbo: They have marriages that were legal when they entered into them that are not invalid now but also are not recognized by the state that granted them.

This raises three significant questions:

The first gay couple to be married in Utah, Seth Anderson (left) and Michael Ferguson, are seen after getting married at the Salt Lake County Clerk's office in Salt Lake City, Utah, Dec. 20, 2013.

Jim Urquhart / Reuters

Despite Utah's attempt to answer this definitively, even Herbert's chief of staff noted that "if a same-sex married couple previously changed their names on new drivers licenses, those licenses should not be revoked." That may be a slight crack in the door, but it is sure to be emblematic of other situations moving forward. There is some recognition of those couples' marriages, and more will arise as days of this "limbo" status turn into weeks and months — a fact acknowledged in the chief of staff to the governor's letter, which noted, "We recognize that different state agencies have specific questions and circumstances that will need to be worked through."

The state, thus far, has not given much guidance. The statement from Reyes was only four paragraphs, and, asked whether the governor was given anything else in writing from the attorney general's office, a spokesman for Reyes told BuzzFeed, "No, there is no written opinion being given to the governor." The chief of staff to the governor's letter, meanwhile, was six paragraphs, and urged agencies to consult with the attorney general's office and the governor's chief counsel on those "circumstances" that are going to arise in coming weeks and months.

What's more, the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah already has announced that it is looking for plaintiffs to challenge the governor and attorney general's overall decision not to recognize the marriages while the appeal is pending. In a letter sent to Reyes, the ACLU of Utah's legal director warned that, in the organization's view, "refusing to recognize their marriages would put the state in conflict with the couples' due process rights."

View Entire List ›

Noah Mamet, a political consultant with ties to Jim Messina and enemies among donors, is supposed to be on his way to Buenos Aires. But a delay by Sen. Menendez has been a “phenomenal obstacle.”

Mandel Ngan / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez has delayed for more than five months the confirmation hearing of a political consultant President Obama tapped, to the ire of other Democratic donors, for a key South American ambassadorship last summer.

The unofficial hold on the nomination of Noah Mamet, a Los Angeles fundraiser who counts Obama campaign manager Jim Messina as his political patron, comes even as Menendez has moved on dozens of other nominations of donors and political allies for whom ambassadorships are among the most desired prizes.

One donor familiar with Mamet's effort to get a hearing before the committee described the delay by Menendez as a "phenomenal obstacle."

Mamet was nominated last year, on July 30, to be the next ambassador to Argentina. While Mamet's nomination has languished, 24 consecutive ambassador nominees since then have either had their hearings before or at least scheduled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mamet's remains off the books.

The 44-year-old has struggled to get his hearing scheduled, even after weeks of asking donors, congressional staffers, and friends to lobby the senator's office on his behalf.

Asked why Mamet's hearing has been in a holding pattern, Menendez's office declined to comment on the reasons for the delay. Spokeswoman Tricia Enright said, "Chairman Menendez very much looks forward to Mr. Mamet coming before the Foreign Relations Committee in the near future."

The selection of Mamet — a bundler, adviser to donors, and close friend to Messina — was met with a wave of complaints from his colleagues in the Democratic donor class last year.

Key Democratic donors and fundraisers charged that Mamet unfairly leveraged his clients' work for his own political gain, as BuzzFeed reported in December. Mamet was also advising clients on how best to pursue their own political appointments with the administration before securing his own ambassadorial nomination.

Donors additionally charged that Mamet, with little foreign policy experience, is unqualified for the post in Argentina, a G-20 country. Mamet, who raised $2 million for Obama's reelection campaign last year, often references his work on the Pacific Council on International Policy and his trip to Sierra Leone the National Democratic Institute, a group led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that is the Democratic Party's international democracy promotion arm.

The consultant's qualifications, three sources close to the administration said, were a cause of concern for senior officials in the White House when the nomination was first put forward last year. Valerie Jarrett, Obama's longtime senior adviser, was among those who raised questions about the appointment — but Messina, who now runs his own private firm, pushed for Mamet to go through, the sources said.

In recent months, the California consultant has launched a one-man lobbying effort to get his Senate hearing scheduled. Mamet has asked supporters to urge Menendez to advance the appointment, according to more than a half dozen donors and fundraisers he has contacted since his nomination.

At the Ritz-Carlton Hotel last month in Washington, while attending the annual dinner for the National Democratic Institute, Mamet was seen "working the room," asking friends at the event to appeal to Menendez's office on his behalf, a donor in attendance said. Another donor familiar with Mamet's ongoing effort said the calls to Menendez's office have been "heavy-handed" — like "phone-banking."

A Menendez aide said the Foreign Relations Committee staff has received calls of support from Democrats who have worked with Mamet. But the aide added that the number of calls has not been "out of the ordinary."

Menendez's chief of staff, Danny O'Brien, met with Mamet early last month.

It's unclear whether concerns over Mamet or his qualifications had any role in the delay over his nomination hearing before the committee.

The senator has for months slow-walked a host of ambassador nominations for positions in Central and South America as a protest over the administration's policy on Cuba. Menendez favors tighter sanctions on the communist regime there, while Obama has made some conciliatory gestures.

There are now 62 nominees at every level pending before the committee. But Mamet is the only ambassador-rank pick since late July — with the exception of the four most recent nominees, announced within the last month and a half — who has not yet had a hearing scheduled by Menendez's committee.

An aide with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is frequently in contact with the White House regarding nominees, said it has been "several weeks" since their staff has heard from the administration on the issue of Mamet's hearing.

But a White House aide attributed the quiet spell to the recent December recess. "We've been in touch with them every week they've been in session on all of our nominees, including Noah Mamet, and hope the committee moves on these nominations swiftly," the administration official said.

Mamet referred questions to a State Department official, who noted that dozens of presidential nominees are still in limbo because of congressional gridlock.

Political junkies know all about Chris Christie, and imagine that others do too. Now he’s the guy who closed the bridge.

Mike Segar / Reuters

Chris Christie has long been unusually popular for a politician — he's the big-hearted, confrontational, and ultimately decent guy from half-remembered television moments, Letterman and Leno and the 2012 presidential election.

Until this week, however, he was missing a crucial piece of political image: Nobody associated him with a policy or a program, just with a general haze of good will.

Well, that problem has been solved. Chris Christie finally has a well-known policy stance. He's the guy who closed a bridge as an act of petty retribution, and whose aides lied like crazy about it and said some truly despicable things — about, for instance, punishing Democratic voters' children — in their private emails.

Christie denies having known about the politically motivated closures, and his aides' testimony under oath and to law enforcement agents will probably shed some light on whether he's telling the truth about that. But anyone who brushes off the damage that has been done to the former Republican frontrunner for 2016 is falling prey to the fallacy that dictates a lot of early presidential campaign coverage: They're assuming people who express a mild preference for Chris Christie in opinion polls know anything about the guy.

In fact, the first political impressions on which early polls (and Christie leads Republicans with a modest 18% in one recent survey) are light, passing impressions. The voters who answer these polls know one thing about the candidate, maybe two, maybe three. If they knew one thing about Christie beyond his physical appearance, it's that he was blunt and honest. If they knew a second, it's that he wasn't a partisan — that he hugged Obama when the president helped his state.

Now that light impression has another stamp on top of it: That he's a partisan, surrounded (at least) by liars, and a guy whose punishment for his enemies, their voters, and their children was pretty much the thing Americans hate most.

There's "nothing as ubiquitous — or as universally despised — as a traffic jam," noted one top Democrat Thursday.

People who think hard about Chris Christie's place in presidential politics always land on Rudy Giuliani, who Republicans thought they liked for a minute, and then got to know. Politico's Maggie Haberman, who has probably covered the pair more closely than any other reporter since her time in Giuliani's New York City Hall, talked to the former mayor recently about Christie and gave his optimistic comparison: Christie, he told her, is a better candidate than he was.

Today, he looks a lot more like Rudy at his weakest: The good first impression deeply undercut by incomprehensible local detail.

Giuliani is "the closest example" to Christie's current state, said Rick Tyler, a former top aide to Newt Gingrich.

"You and I knew him very, very well, me because of his work with Newt, and I read his book," Tyler recalled of Giuliani's presidential flame-out. "But when he showed up in Iowa with four blacked out SUVs and a security detail, it was a little odd."

"People who are watching cable TV every day … get a sense of who Christie is, but the average voter isn't paying that close of attention," Tyler said. Now, "voters are annoyed enough to pay attention."

You can read all the usual prescriptions online for how Christie can fix this problem. He should come clean, bare his breast, admit mistakes, fire people. And — sure. That's how he can save his governorship, and maybe claw his way back to the status of an unusually effective governor of New Jersey, a guy who gets his way in Trenton, controls the local Republican Party, wins more policy fights in the state legislature than he loses.

But the massive national damage has been done. (And Hillary Clinton ought to thank Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his staff's role in pushing the story forward.)

But politicians don't get that many moments in the national spotlight. Voters don't have the time or interest, this far out, to know more than one or two things about these remote media figures. And now, if anyone knows anything about Chris Christie, it's that he closed a bridge.

Chris Christie apologized Thursday for the politically motivated bridge lane closures last year, announcing that he had fired a top staffer involved.

View Video ›

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday he had no knowledge of a plan to shut down traffic-heavy bridge lanes in political retribution last year, after emails have emerged showing top staffers were involved in the lane closures.

Christie said he was lied to by top aides, including Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly, who Christie fired Thursday for her role in the scandal.

"I come out here to this office where I've been many times before," Christie said Thursday at the press conference. "I come out here today to apologize to the people of New Jersey. I apologize to the people of Fort Lee, and I apologize to the members of the state legislator. I am embarrassed and humiliated by the conduct of some of the people on my team. There's no doubt in my mind that the conduct that they exhibited is completely unacceptable and showed a lack of respect for their appropriate role of government and for the people that were trusted to serve."

Last year, after the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., declined to endorse Christie for reelection, lanes on the George Washington Bridge, which connects New Jersey to New York City, were closed. Christie had denied involvement in the closures last year.

Emails emerged Wednesday directly tying Kelly, his deputy chief of staff, to the closures.

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Kelly emailed David Wildstein, a top Christie ally at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, according to documents obtained by various news organizations.

Christie also said Thursday he would have never joked about the scandal if he had not been assured by his staff they were not involved in creating the traffic jam.

In December, Christie had mocked a reporter for asking about the scandal at a press conference, joking that he was personally involved.

"I worked the cones, actually," Christie joked. "Unbeknownst to everybody, I was actually the guy out there. I was in overalls and hat, but I was actually the guy working the cones out there. You really are not serious with that question?"

LINK: Why The Christie Mess Is Even Worse For Him Than It Seems

“Awkward timing,” says the Times .

President Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina found himself the subject of unwelcome attention in the British press today after he picked up a contract on behalf of the gambling industry — an industry that Prime Minister David Cameron, a marquee Messina client, is trying to regulate.

The American Gaming Association announced this week that it had hired Messina amid its campaign to prevent tighter federal regulation of online gambling.

Messina's hire comes as Cameron announced a plan to crack down on the "crack cocaine" of slot machines.

The Times of London Thursday noted the hire under the headline, "Tory adviser takes gaming job as PM warns of '£100 a go' machines." (The article is behind a pay wall.) It called the move "awkward timing."

"How can voters trust David Cameron on gambling when his electoin guru has been appointed by one of the largest lobbyings for the gambling industry in the world?" a Labour Party member of parliament, Jon Ashworth, asked the Times.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie apologized Thursday for the involvement of senior aides in the politically motivated closure of bridge lanes last year, but still said there may have been a “traffic study” — the original reason given for the closures.

View Video ›

Surprise? Fox News covered the scandal more than Al Jazeera America.

The four major cable news networks have had dramatically different approaches to the release of emails that show members of New Jersey governor Chris Christie's staff had deliberately closed lanes on America's busiest bridge as political retribution for a local mayor who did not support Christie's re-election.

Below are the total minutes of coverage dedicated to the story from the time that it broke early Wednesday morning up until the scheduled start of Christie's press conference at 11 a.m. on Tuesday morning.

Al Jazeera America, a cable network that has promised a "sober" news coverage, dedicated 30 minutes of total coverage to the scandal.

Fox News, which waiting until 3:07 P.M. to report on the story, dedicated 38 minutes of total coverage.

View Entire List ›

The governor said all he can do now is apologize.

View Video ›

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said the reports that a 91-year-old woman died due to an EMS delay caused by traffic from the closure of four lanes on the George Washington Bridge last September were "awful."

On Thursday, Christie said he had no knowledge of a staffer's plan to shut down lanes on the heavily trafficked bridge — in an apparent act of political retribution — after emails emerged showing top aides were involved in the lane closures.

"It's awful...now I've also seen conflicting reports of cause of death or whatever, but it doesn't matter. It's awful to hear," Christie said. "Listen, all I can do is apologize for the conduct of the people who worked for me. I can't do anything else. I can't reverse time. If I could, believe me, I would. But i'm just going to apologize. I think that's all you can do, and there's really nothing else you can do."

According to a report in The Record, it took EMS seven minutes to reach an unconscious 91-year-old woman who would later die of cardiac arrest at a hospital. An EMS coordinator could not, however, say the death was directly caused by the delays.

The state senator was viciously attacked by his son — who then committed suicide — in November.

AP Photo/Steve Helber

Virginia State Senator Creigh Deeds returned to the Richmond Wednesday for the opening day of the state's General Assembly, marking his first public appearance since he was attacked in his home by his son, who then committed suicide, nearly two months ago.

"We love you. Welcome back," Gov. Bob McDonnell told Deeds in his final State of the Commonwealth address, prompting the room of lawmakers to show their support by rising to their feet and applauding. The senator, whose face now bears deep scars, appeared visibly moved by the gesture.

In an interview with The Roanoke Times, Deeds said he was overwhelmed by the support he and his family have received since the attack. He didn't go into detail about the events of Nov. 19, saying only, "I survived."

Deeds told the newspaper that he has been moved by the stories of other families' "harrowing experiences" with Virginia's mental health system. He confirmed that his son Austin, known as "Gus," had a history of mental illness and had been committed for psychiatric treatment twice in 2011.

"My son was 18, he was an adult," Deeds said. "I couldn't make him keep appointments. … I couldn't make him take medicine."

The day before the attack, Deeds was concerned enough about his son's erratic behavior to obtain an emergency custody order from a local magistrate that allowed Gus Deeds to be held for up to six hours for mental evaluation. However, Deeds said the Rockbridge Area Community Services Board released his son when the six hours expired because it could not find a psychiatric bed to hold him under a 48-hour temporary detention order.

"My son was let go that night," Deeds said. "I think that was irresponsible."

The next morning, Gus Deeds returned to the family home and stabbed his father multiple times in the head and torso before fatally shooting himself with a rifle. Later, three area hospitals told the press that they had psychiatric beds available but had not been contacted.

Before the legislative session began, the Washington Post reports, Deeds had already introduced two mental health bills: "one to lengthen the emergency custody period from six to 24 hours and the other to create a minute-by-minute registry of beds available in public and private psychiatric facilities."

AP Photo/Steve Helber

LINK: Virginia State Senator Stabbed In His Home, Son Found Dead Of Gunshot Wound

View Entire List ›

Former Port Authority executive and Christie ally David Wildstein, who is testifying before the N.J. Assembly Transportation Committee on his role at the center of the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge as part of a political vendetta back in September, repeatedly took the Fifth Amendment Thursday.

"On the advice of counsel, I reserve my right to remain silent."

View Video ›

“I believe him, I still support him,” says the mayor of Chesilhurst Borough. “I’d endorse Christie again,” says the mayor of Harrison, N.J.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Chesilhurst, N.J., Mayor Michael Blunt

Via njtvonline.org

WASHINGTON — Democratic New Jersey mayors who bucked their party to support Republican Gov. Chris Christie's reelection bid last year are denying their endorsements were coerced and defending Christie against critics in the wake of revelations over the George Washington Bridge lane closures.

"I still stand with Gov. Christie. You can hire people, you have good intentions and you think highly of these people, and people get fired every day," said Michael Blunt, the Democratic mayor of Chesilhurst, N.J. "It's not just Gov. Christie, any organization or business where you're hiring people, people get fired because they do things they're not supposed to do. So I believe him in what he said about what happened. I still support him."

Blunt said he faced no political pressure to back Christie and said he never heard of Christie's team applying pressure to others.

"My endorsement is based on the things that he's done for my community and how he's handled himself in the state of New Jersey," he said. "There was no coercion," he added.

The Christie campaign touted the backing of Democratic mayors and other officials to burnish the Republican incumbent's bipartisan credibility ahead of an expected 2016 run for the White House. So far there's no sign he'll lose that Democratic mayoral support as he struggles to get his second term on track after firing some of his closest aides in reaction to what Democrats are calling Bridgegate.

"I can assure you I did not feel pressured at all," Palmyra Mayor Karen Scheffler told the AP Wednesday. Scheffler did not immediately respond to questions left on her cellphone voicemail Thursday.

Other Democratic mayors are also sticking with Christie.

"Whatever happened up there, I still think (Christie) is a good guy," said Burlington City, N.J. Mayor, James Fazzone, to the AP.

Raymond McDonough, mayor of Harrison, N.J. not only didn't back away from his endorsement for Christie Thursday — he said he'd double down if he could.

"I'd endorse Christie again," he told BuzzFeed.

Brian Stack, a state senator who also endorsed Christie in the re-election campaign, echoed McDonough.

"I would do it again," he said.

"I went to the governor and offered to endorse him," Stack said. "He never once came to me and said 'Brian, I want you to endorse me.'"

"Chris Christie has probably been the best thing that's happened to New Jersey," Stack said.

Rosie Gray contributed reporting.

This post has been updated with comments from New Jersey State Senator Brian Stack. (4:13 p.m.)

“[T]here is simply no reason for the United States government not to extend federal recognition to these more than 1,300 couples,” Human Rights Campaign head says.

Jax Collins, left, and Heather Collins share a kiss after getting married at the Salt Lake County Government Building in Salt Lake City, Utah, December 23, 2013.

Jim Urquhart / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The nation's largest LGBT rights organization urged the Obama administration to recognize the marriages of the 1,360 same-sex couples who married in Utah over the past several weeks.

"There is no legal reason to question the validity of these more than 1,300 marriages. Each was legally performed by a clerk representing the State of Utah, in accordance with the state's statutes and constitution," Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday.

"Given this landscape of facts, there is simply no reason for the United States government not to extend federal recognition to these more than 1,300 couples."

The request comes a day after Utah Gov. Gary Herbert announced that the state has put its own recognition of those marriages — granted by the state between Dec. 20, 2103, and Jan. 6 — "on hold" during the appeal of the case challenging the state's marriage amendment and in light of the Supreme Court's stay of the trial court order in the case pending that appeal.

The question of how the federal government will treat the marriages of the same-sex couples who married during that period remains up in the air. On Wednesday, a Justice Department spokesperson said the department was reviewing Herbert's decision.

Update at 4:30 p.m.: A Justice Department official confirmed receipt of the letter to BuzzFeed, but had no further comment at this time.

Read HRC's letter to Holder:

View Entire List ›

The New Jersey governor won’t be able to count on much support from the conservative blogosphere as he fights through a scandal. He burned that bridge long ago.

Democrats aren't the only ones indulging in schadenfreude as Chris Christie faces down the biggest political scandal of his career this week: Conservatives are taking delight in the controversy as well.

Christie has been at odds with his party's right wing ever since the final days of the 2012 campaign, when many on the right believe he abandoned his efforts to elect Mitt Romney in pursuit of his own image as a champion of bipartisanship — embracing President Obama, often literally, in a series of widely publicized photos and interviews in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. He went on to stake out decidedly centrist positions on a number of issues during his reelection campaign, and when he won in a landslide, he lectured the rest of the GOP about why they should follow his lead.

The result has been that any goodwill that once existed between the prospective 2016 candidate and the tea party has evaporated — leading conservative activists and the right-wing blogosphere to sit back and watch gleefully as Christie's bridge scandal unfolds.

Typically, when high-profile Republicans find themselves at the center of national controversies, members of the online right see it as their duty to push back against the agenda-driven hype of the mainstream media. And indeed, conservative writers and tweeters have spent plenty of time scoffing at pundits' hasty rush to write off Christie 2016. Many also used Christie's press conference Thursday — in which he announced that he had fired his deputy chief of staff over the scandal, and took questions for two hours — to draw a contrast with how Obama attempts to float above the fray whenever controversy strikes. Echoing many of his peers, Breitbart reporter Matt Boyle tweeted, "Kinda do like how Christie fired everybody. Wouldn't it be nice if Obama fired staff responsible for scandal?"

But just because conservatives are relishing the opportunity to accuse Democrats and reporters of hypocrisy doesn't mean they're rushing to Christie's defense. Instead, many conservatives seem willing to leave the Republican to twist in the wind, as they chant "I told you so" to the GOP's more moderate Christie fans.

RedState editor Erick Erickson wrote about the bridge scandal Wednesday in a post he headlined, "The Politics of A-Holes":

I'm ambivalent on his run for the Presidency. But I don't see him getting that far for the very reasons underlying this issue — he and his staff operate as divas.

I have had Congressmen, Governors, and the staffers of Congressmen and Governors tell me horror stories about dealing with Christie's people. All of them seem to dread it...

This was always going to be Christie's problem. People want a winner. And they want an a**hole. But they want the person to be their a**hole, not an a**hole who tries to make everyone else his whipping boy.

View Entire List ›

The former NBA star feared the other players “were going to leave” North Korea ahead of the interview, Rodman’s spokesman said.

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A spokesperson for Dennis Rodman says that the former NBA star's incoherent meltdown on CNN this week was the result of deteriorating relations with the other basketball players on the trip.

"A lot of these comments and the mood there with some of the players really contributed to his lashing out at Cuomo," said Jules Feiler, a publicist for Rodman. "That's not an excuse, but there were disgruntled players and he saw this as sort of the end of his plans for basketball diplomacy."

"It's my understanding that he was fearing that guys were going to leave and it was happening before his interview with Chris Cuomo," Feiler said, referring to the CNN anchor who conducted the interview. "They knew what they were there for, but once they got there they were feeling like the mood wasn't quite what they expected."

The wife of Cliff Robinson, one of the former NBA players on the trip led by Rodman, has called the trip a "train wreck," and player Charles Smith told the Associated Press that he regrets participating in the trip and that "I feel a lot of remorse for the guys because we are doing something positive, but it's a lot bigger than us."

Rodman is in North Korea with several former NBA players for an exhibition game against the North Korean team that took place this week. Rodman has visited North Korea several times and refers to Kim Jong-un as a "friend."

Rodman appeared on CNN on Tuesday and lashed out when anchor Chris Cuomo asked if he would use his special access to Kim Jong Un to ask for the release of Kenneth Bae, an American imprisoned in North Korea. Rodman seemed to blame Bae for the situation, saying "The one thing about politics, Kenneth Bae did one thing. If you understand — if you understand what Kenneth Bae did. Do you understand what he did? In this country?"

Rodman has since apologized through Feiler, saying that he had been drinking.

Feiler said he did not know when the team would leave North Korea.

"They're going to be headed home at some point," he said. He said the team was "decompressing" and that "they're not doing anything really."

Feiler said the players' travel had been paid for but would not say whether or not they are receiving payment on top of that. He would not specify who is paying for the trip but said that it was not the North Korean government. Irish betting house Paddy Power, which had previously been a sponsor, pulled out after Rodman's last trip to North Korea.

Rodman, Feiler said, "feels really bad about what he did and what he said" on CNN, "and he certainly didn't want to make the situation worse." But "right now we're not going to speak about his getting involved" in helping Bae.

House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans are working on a draft set of recommendations for an immigration push this year — and they will include the status of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner will include provisions addressing the fate of more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States as part of a draft immigration proposal he'll circulate to members later this month.

Although GOP leadership aides stressed no formal decisions have been made on what will be included in the recommendations, the fact that Boehner will include provisions to deal with undocumented immigrants is a significant departure for House Republicans.

Boehner, along with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and a small group of Republicans, has been drafting a set of principles that will ultimately guide House Republicans when the issue comes to the fore likely in the late spring. Boehner is expected to circulate the principles to members of the Republican conference at a retreat in rural Maryland at the end of January.

One Republican noted that given how far the debate over immigration has shifted, the draft recommendations "can't not mention the 11 million," even if that means conservatives will attack leaders, a reality leadership is prepared for.

"There's no way we don't catch shit," one senior aide said.

Although Democrats and moderate Republicans in the Senate have embraced providing undocumented immigrants with a path to citizenship, what to do about them has been the most divisive aspect of reform for House Republicans.

While a small knot of 18 to 20 House conservatives continue to insist mass deportations are the only appropriate response, their influence over the conference continues to wane dramatically.

For instance, late last year members of the so-called "No Caucus" circulated a draft letter to Boehner opposing talks with the Senate over comprehensive immigration reform. But that effort appears to have been dropped in large part because only 19 Republicans would commit to signing the letter, far too few for it to be used as leverage against the Republican leader, GOP aides familiar with the situation said.

Indeed, the vast majority of Boehner's conference appears at least resigned to the idea that some sort of legalization or normalization for the 11 million is needed as part of any concerted effort to change immigration law. But the problem for Boehner continues to be how to craft something that deals with undocumented immigrants but which conservatives can't easily paint as amnesty.

Rep. Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, said dealing with undocumented immigrants must be part of the broader set of proposals. "I think that's going to have to be part of a solution once you have border security and enforcement in place. The last thing we're going to want is a repeat of the 1986 legislation," Gardner said.

"So how do we avoid doing this all over again? By creating a long-term solution for the American people. Look, no one in that chamber, nobody in this country, can imagine a world where they wouldn't do everything they could to get to the United States, and we need to make a system that works," he added. "[Republicans] recognize if we do nothing, it's a de facto broken system."

Even if Boehner is able to thread that exceedingly tight needle, however, the chances reform passes this year remain slim: While most of his members may see the need for legal changes, a majority appear to have little desire to be the ones who pass them and end up holding the political bag.

“I know your mom is proud. I know she is. She should be.”

Harlem 9th grader Kiara Molina's poised introduction to president Obama's Promise Zone announcement at the White House Thursday was impressive enough for the president to call it, "one of the best introductions I've ever had."

View Video ›

View Entire List ›

Staples managers are now forbidden to schedule part-time associates for more than 25 hours a week, according to a Dec. 6 memo. A petition against the move is circulating saying the decision is based on the Affordable Care Act.

Staples memo to store managers

Staples / Via Provided to BuzzFeed

Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week, a move that has drawn the ire of disgruntled workers who claim it is a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty.

According to an early December internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed that Staples sent to its store managers, the company described the decision to curb hours for part-time associates starting with the week ended Jan. 4 as "an effort to maximize scheduling flexibility." The retailer distributed "talking points" for discussing the change with part-time employees who regularly worked above the new limit — a brief script that that spells out three moments for the manager to "pause and check for understanding." Staples also noted in the memo that managers might need to hire more part-time workers to compensate for the reduction in hours.

While Staples didn't mention the Affordable Care Act, angry associates have taken to social media to point out that a major provision of the law, which takes effect next year, will count people working at least 30 hours a week as full-time employees. Companies of 50 people or more that don't provide affordable healthcare to full-time workers will be forced to pay a penalty of up to $3,000 per person.

One anonymous Staples employee, who says she worked 30- to 35-hour weeks for nine years, started a Change.org petition last month that's garnered more than 160,000 signatures, asking the retailer to refrain from limiting part-time shifts because she and others need the money from the extra hours. Some workers say they can't obtain one of the few full-time positions in stores while others are balancing the hours with school or children.

A representative for Staples told BuzzFeed that the limit on hours for part-time workers is not new and has, in fact, been in effect for more than a decade.

"We have reiterated the policy as we work to increase the efficiency of our retail network," Mark Cautela, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.

However, Cautela didn't respond to follow-up questions about why the memo said Staples was "implementing" the rule starting this month or why it used the phrases "new guidelines" and "new part time hour policy."

Staples' talking points for managers on the new policy

Staples / Via Provided to BuzzFeed

Retailers and restaurants, which employ a high number of part-time workers, vehemently opposed the Affordable Care Act's definition of full-time employees, pushing for it to apply to those working at least 40 hours a week. The National Retail Federation warned in June that with the 30-hour definition, retail and chain restaurants "will be forced to fine tune the balance between full and part-time, focusing on employee status on a real-time basis."

While the White House said in September that there was no evidence President Obama's signature healthcare program was boosting the number of part-time workers, which has been elevated since the recession, much of the effect is likely to be seen this year as companies prepare for the mandate.

Whole Foods Chief Executive Officer John Mackey said last month that the 30-hour rule "creates an incentive to have fewer full-time workers and more part-time workers." He said the grocery-chain, which was traditionally 75% full-time and 25% part-time workers, is changing that mix to 70% and 30% this year because of the new healthcare law.

"If our costs keep going up, I expect probably that percentage will continue to increase for part-timers and decrease for full-timers," he said.

Stage Stores CEO Michael Glazer said on a conference call late last year that the chain would "possibly" add more part-timers because of the law, adding that, "I don't think we're any different than any other retailer from that standpoint."

View Entire List ›

A festive bunch.

George Zimmerman is famous for....you know.

Via Twitter: @TherealGeorgeZ

Gilbert Gottfried, who was famously fired by Aflac for joking about the tsunami in Japan and joked about a plane hitting the Empire State Building right after 9/11.

Via youtube.com

Rob Ford wore a tie featuring the Redskins logo when he apologized for smoking crack. He also has said he thinks the Redskins changing their name would be "ridiculous."

Via Twitter: @TheKaufmanShow

Redskins owner Dan Snyder and Tom Cruise are friends (Snyder has popped bottles with Cruise at Super Bowl parties) and Snyder is a partner is Cruise's production company.

Via espn.go.com

View Entire List ›