There can be only one.

Image by Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The next presidential race is still years away, but two tracks of the campaign are already beginning to take shape. In the mainstream tier, Senator Marco Rubio is shadow-boxing with former Gov. Jeb Bush and other Establishment figures. But there is a second track for conservative hearts and minds, a la Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee.

And over on Earth 2, the real battle is Senator Rand Paul vs. Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Rare public glimmerings of this could be seen during Rand Paul's State of the Union rebuttal, billed as the official Tea Party response, which didn't go over well with a few political hands connected to Jindal.

"[A]nd now for the rebuttal to the GOP response from 2016 Libertarian Party Nominee Rand Paul #sotu," tweeted Brad Todd a principal at On Message Inc., a Republican media firm whose clients include Jindal (and have included Paul in the past, when they made television ads for his Senate race).

Todd sent a similar tweet on Monday, responding to the National Review's Robert Costa tweeting a Rand Paul quote about only running for president if he'll win: "hence he will not seek appropriate Libertarian Party nom."

And another one a couple days before that, responding to the National Journal's description of Paul as the Republican to watch in 2013: "Might need a fact check on that descriptor? Rs are hawks."

Todd declined to comment for this story. And while tweets may not be a matter of high political strategy, the growing ill will between the camps runs both ways.

"I don't see Bobby Jindal being much of a player on Rand or Marco's side of the field," said one senior Republican operative associated with Paul. "Quite frankly I see him as the 2016 version of Tim Pawlenty without the Minnesota nice."

Paul said on Monday that he will wait until 2014 to make a final decision about running for president, but said that he thought voters were ready for a serious libertarian Republican contender. Jindal and Paul are two men with very different styles but with some similar reform-minded views about making the Republican party more open to minorities and immigrants. Jindal was famously one of the first Republican politicians to condem Mitt Romney's post-election comments to donors about how Obama won because of "gifts" he had given minority voters.

"Aside from a few speeches it's hard for Jindal to claim an outsider mantle," said another Republican strategist. "Tactically they are clearly edging to the populism tone Rand does own or at least unarguably articulates much better."

The strategist said Jindal's people were "threatened" by Paul.

But those close to Jindal say they don't see Paul as a threat because he doesn't pass the smell test of true conservatism. And at any rate, it's too early to get too much skin in the game.

"The only person I know that's running for president is Rand Paul," said one Republican operative. "He's the only one who's said he's running for president. "

"He's not a conservative, he's a libertarian," the operative said. "Hopefully the conservative movement is attractive to a lot of libertarian voters, but to be the leader of the conservative movement you have to be a conservative."

A schedule released by Gov. Shumlin last Friday shows Jindal on the program, but the governor is no longer slated to attend. A spokesman says the Shumlin schedule was premature. [Updated]

Image by Larry Downing / Reuters

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has called off a scheduled appearance Friday at Politico's third-annual debate between the chairs of the Republican and Democratic governors on the occasion of the National Governors Association winter meeting this weekend in Washington, D.C.

The news organization has hosted an RGA-NGA debate two years running as a feature of its State Solutions Conference, held in tandem with the annual governors meeting. Gov. Martin O'Malley, former chair of the DGA, sparred with his then-RGA counterparts, Gov. Rick Perry in 2011, and Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2012.

Jindal was slated to appear alongside current DGA chair — Peter Shumlin, the governor of Vermont — according to an official schedule emailed to members of the press last Friday, Feb. 16, by a member of Shumlin's staff.

"Governor Shumlin and RGA Chair Governor Bobby Jindal discuss and debate challenges facing states as part of Politico's State Solution Conference," the schedule read.

But when Politico announced the States Solutions Conference schedule Wednesday evening, Jindal was not listed as a participant — although he is still set to appear this weekend in Washington for the National Governors Association meeting. Shumlin, according to the Politico press release, will now appear solo Friday morning, followed by a panel later in the afternoon with Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas and Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Jindal's apparent cancellation was preceded by a Politico article — published Sunday morning under the headline, "Bobby Jindal is governing like it's 2016" — that presents voices critical of the Louisiana governor for focusing on a potential presidential bid, and for advancing policy aimed at "future GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire."

(The Jindal camp, evidently, had its problems with the piece. The day after Politico published the report, the governor's communications director, Kyle Plotkin, tweeted the link to an article written by conservative pundit Erick Erickson, who took issue with a number of factual claims in the piece and called it proof that "journalism is a dying and biased industry.")

Plotkin did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

A spokesperson for Politico, reached by email Wednesday afternoon, told BuzzFeed, "We had invited Gov. Jindal to join us, but for scheduling reasons it didn't work out."

Asked about the schedule Shumlin's office released last week, the spokesperson said, "We hadn't officially announced the speakers for the event until now."

Update: Plotkin emailed BuzzFeed Wednesday evening to say that the Politico story had nothing to do with the event in question. "Governor Shumlin's office prematurely released a schedule with an event that was never confirmed," Plotkin said. "The Governor [Jindal] isn't arriving in D.C. until Friday afternoon while the POLITICO event is scheduled for Friday morning."

Secretary of Defense nominee called to account for email from a lecture attendee.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham has called on former Sen. Chuck Hagel to account for an email obtained by the Washington Free Beacon sent during a lecture he attended in 2010 that stated that he warned that Israel was at risk of becoming an "apartheid state."

The email was sent to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee by Kenneth Wagner, according to the conservative publication.

"I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers," Wagner wrote. "He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn't allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible."

In a letter to Hagel, Graham asked "Did you say this? Have you ever said anything similar? Does this contemporaneous email accurately reflect your views?"

There is no evidence that the paraphrased email reflected Hagel's remarks, nor has audio or video recording of the speech been discovered.

The President talked to ABC7 in San Francisco about golfing with Tiger in an interview tonight.

View Video ›

Image by

And here's the rest of the interview.

“I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case,” Obama said Wednesday. If the administration weighs in, it will have to come by Feb. 28.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — President Obama refused to say Wednesday whether his administration will weigh in on the challenge to California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment that is before the Supreme Court.

Distancing himself from the decision, Obama said the Justice Department was still reviewing the issue and added that he has to "make sure that [he's] not interjecting [him]self too much into this process."

Facing a Feb. 28 deadline for filing an amicus curiae — or friend of the court — brief with the high court, Obama was asked in an interview with San Francisco's KGO-TV whether his administration would be giving the court its view on the constitutionality of the state's 2008 marriage amendment that stopped same-sex couples from being able to marry there.

"The solicitor general [in the Justice Department] is still looking at this. I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case," Obama said. "I can tell you, though, obviously, my personal view, which is that I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights and be treated like everybody else, and that's something I feel very strongly about and my administration is acting on wherever we can."

Earlier Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that a senior administration official said that no "final decision" had been made yet on whether a brief would be filed in the Proposition 8 case. The AP also reported that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, DOJ's lawyer before the Supreme Court, is "consulting" with the White House on the issue.

Although the administration is a party to a second case before the court challenging the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" as being limited to marriages of one man and one woman, the administration is not involved in the Proposition 8 litigation.

In the DOMA case, Obama and the Justice Department have viewed the law as unconstitutional since February 2011, at which point DOJ stopped defending the provision in court. Obama has never said, however, whether he believes Proposition 8 — or any state law or constitutional provision banning same-sex couples from marrying — is unconstitutional.

The couples challenging Proposition 8, backed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, face a Thursday deadline to file their brief with the Supreme Court arguing why the 2008 amendment is unconstitutional. Supportive friend-of-the-court briefs in the Proposition 8 case are due by Feb. 28.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, on March 26. Arguments in the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, are set for March 27.

“The Dred Scott decision had to be repealed, we have to repeal Citizens United,” Massachusetts Democrat says days after meeting with black clergy.

Image by Josh Reynolds / AP

WASHINGTON — Rep. Ed Markey on Tuesday compared the Supreme Court's Citizens United campaign finance decision to the 1858 Dred Scott decision upholding slavery during a campaign speech in Pittsfield, Mass.

The remarks came during a speech that Markey, who is running to replace former Sen. John Kerry in the Senate, gave to a crowd of supporters in which he said repealing the decision is a key reason he is running.

"I want to go to the United States Senate in order to fight for a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. The whole idea that the Koch brothers, that Karl Rove can say we're coming to Massachusetts, to any state of the union with undisclosed amounts of money is a pollution, which must be changed," Markey said to loud applause.

"The constitution must be amended. The Dred Scott decision had to be repealed, we have to repeal Citizens United," he added.

The speech, which was given before some 100 residents of the area, was heavy on issues like the environment, gun control and local development and economic issues, according to the Berkshire Eagle.

In 1858 a slave by the name of Dred Scott sued for his freedom and his family's. The case made it to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled against Scott, a decision that helped galvanize elements of the North in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Citizens United, by contrast, is a 2010 high court decision gutting much of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law limiting the ability of corporations to spend money on campaigns. The ruling paved the way for the host of Super PACs that spent tens of millions of dollars in the 2012 campaign.

Markey has accepted more than $2.5 million in contributions from corporate and other PACs during his career, according to opensecrets.org.

Markey is one of the most liberal members of the House, and has been courting black clergy members in the state during his primary fight with Rep. Stephen Lynch.

"Citizens United is poisoning the democratic process in America and that is completely wrong. Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and anonymous special interests have no place in our elections and no place in this Senate race," Markey spokeswoman Giselle Barry said in an email.

He picked it up on cable news, his office says.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite, File / AP

WASHINGTON — South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham wasn't citing an official government number when he put the amount of U.S. drone kills at 4,700, according to a spokesman.

"It appears that number was cited on cable networks such as MSNBC earlier this month," said Graham's press secretary Kevin Bishop. He attached an MSNBC clip from early February in which the number is cited.

The estimate of 4,700 killed originates with the the London-based Bureau for Investigative Journalism, which keeps tallies of American drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

"He quoted the figure that has been publicly reported and disseminated on cable news," Bishop said.

There was some speculation that Graham, in an appearance in Easley, South Carolina on Tuesday, had inadvertently revealed a secret government tally of the number of people killed by U.S. drone strikes abroad. He would have been the first government official to publicly share the tally, if that had been the case.

“The only substantive question in this case is whether the State is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships—their love—of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy,” lawyers for two California couples told the Supreme Court Thursday.

Plaintiffs Kris Perry, right, and Sandy Stier, left, are challenging California's Proposition 8.

Image by Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times/MCT

WASHINGTON — Nearly four years after filing the case, Ted Olson and David Boies told the Supreme Court Thursday that the Constitution "does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the most important relation in life" — marriage.

As part of the challenge to California's Proposition 8 that the two lawyers have brought on behalf of two same-sex couples unable to marry in the state, Olson and Boies argue both broadly for a constitutional right to marry that should include same-sex couples and more narrowly that the vote in November 2008 to end same-sex couples' right to marry in California was unconstitutional.

"The unmistakable purpose and effect of Proposition 8 is to stigmatize gay men and lesbians—and them alone—and enshrine in California's Constitution that they are 'unequal to everyone else,'" they write.

The Supreme Court is schedule to hear the arguments in the case on March 26, and a decision is expected by late June.

Ted Nugent's favorite lawmaker, Rep. Steve Stockman, produces best email subject line of the week.

Image by  Evan Vucci / AP

WASHINGTON — Rep. Steve Stockman is urging his colleagues to "Grab free donuts and coffee before Obama grabs your gun!" when they attend a breakfast briefing with gun rights activists.

Stockman's whimsical headline came in a "dear colleague" letter to other members of the House in support of a Gun Owners of America event on Capitol Hill. The meeting is designed to discuss the dangers of gun-free school zones.

According to the "e-Dear Colleague" — which is, in fact, a thing — guests include "Rob Young, school shooting victim and pro-gun cop [and] Larry Parry, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, debunked Piers Morgan."

The letter isn't the first time Stockman, a conservative lawmaker from Texas, has demonstrated a flair for the dramatic: earlier this month he invited rocker Ted Nugent — who famously threatened violence last year if President Obama was reelected — to be his guest at Obama's State of the Union Address.

In never before seen video, the former First Daughter urges for “basic fairness and civil rights” in pushing for marriage equality ballot measures.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — In a video Chelsea Clinton had recorded — but that never ran — in support of marriage equality ballot measures in 2012, the former First Daughter said "one of the most important issues on any ballot this November is equality for gay Americans."

Clinton recorded the video to support the 2012 marriage equality ballot measures in Maine, Maryland, and Washington and to oppose the Minnesota marriage amendment pending there, but it never ran because NBC News — where Clinton works as a special correspondent — "scuttled" the campaign.

BuzzFeed reported the existence of the videos in November 2012; it obtained one of the videos this week.

In the video for TheFour.com, Clinton says, "I believe that everyone should have the freedom to marry the person they love."

Clinton had supported efforts toward the legislative passage of marriage equality in New York, going so far as to attend and participate in a phone-banking effort in Manhattan before the legislature approved the bill in June 2011. She did not take a public position on the four states' ballot measure in 2012, despite having prepared the video, and sources familiar with the ads told BuzzFeed back in 2012 that it was NBC that prevented the videos from being shown.

In the video, Clinton also said, "I hope you'll join me and others who care about basic fairness and civil rights by doing all you can to support these efforts no matter where you live. The outcome in these four states is so important."

TheFour.com was an effort launched by Andre Banks, Ryan Davis, Brian Ellner and Richard Socarides to draw national attention in social media to all of the state efforts. Although the Clinton message never ran, TheFour.com claimed its other efforts reached more than 3,000,000 voters in the four states with ballot measures on Election Day alone.

Messages to a representative of Clinton seeking comment about the video were not returned, and NBC did not immediately return a request for comment.

Acquiring the most available free agent in cable news could put a serious exclamation mark on MSNBC's recent hiring spree.

After getting dumped by CNN and a brief absence from the cable news world, James Carville, one of the best loved characters in tv news, popped up on Fox News and MSNBC in a 48 hour period.

Sure, he was promoting his book, but the appearances were a treat for political junkies, many of whom have never really known cable news without James Carville, but, more importantly, it was a glimpse of what might be if the rival networks continue the recent trend of beefing up their rosters as they prepare to do battle over who will actually be the place for politics now that CNN has apparently abandoned all efforts to compete in that arena.

If Carville is shopping around for a contributor gig on cable news, taking a job at Fox News makes perfect sense. Fox could use a strong, liberal voice on the network, mostly so that they can boast their "fair and balance" motto out loud with less snickering from the peanut gallery, but also so that an Election Night '14 panel featuring the Ragin' Cajun and Herman Cain sitting at the same desk materializes because, duh, that would be amazing.

Sure, Fox has lots of cash and they're hiring, but do they really want a fiery liberal potentially schooling one of their hosts in a live panel setting? No. Carville knows what Roger Ailes wants out of a contributor, and doing what Ailes wants gets you invited back. When O'Reilly had Carville on to discuss "the biggest problem in America," it was a perfectly fine segment that saw the the two partisans tussle over the issue at hand and then, pleasantly part ways. Mediate called it a "clash." Hmm. You decide.

View Video ›

Now, check out Carville today on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

View Entire List ›

“Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage,” AP Stylebook says.

Image by Jim Mone / AP

WASHINGTON — The Associated Press stated Thursday that "husband" and "wife" are "acceptable in all references" to same-sex married couples, reversing an internal style guidance initially publicized by Jim Romenesko this past week.

In a news release Thursday, the AP states, "The following entry was added today to the AP Stylebook Online and also will appear in the new print edition and Stylebook Mobile, published in the spring." This is the new entry:

husband, wife: Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage. Spouse or partner may be used if requested.

The style guidance issued this past week had said the terms "husband" or "wife" could only be used with same-sex married couples "if those involved have regularly used those terms ... or in quotes attributed to them." Instead, the guidance continued, "Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages."

Initially, AP spokesman Paul Colford told BuzzFeed the guidance only "reaffirmed AP's existing practice," but activists and LGBT organizations criticized the move as treating same-sex couples' marriages differently than opposite-sex couples' marriages.

David Crary, an AP reporter who covers LGBT issues among others, had expressed previously that he would not be following the guidance in his reporting.

Of Thursday's new Stylebook entry, Crary said in an email to journalist Rex Wockner that Crary stated could be made public, "I'm pleased that the AP has added a formal entry in its Stylebook regarding terminology for married couples. After a style guidance memo on the topic was distributed in-house on Feb. 11, it raised concerns among some members of the news staff and became the subject of internal discussions. The resulting Stylebook entry reflects an even-handed approach which many of my colleagues and I have been following and look forward to following in the future."

In an interview from the Oval Office, Obama tells Rev. Al Sharpton Republicans can't see “obvious answer right in front of them.”

View Video ›

Image by

President Obama continued his full court budget press against Republicans Thursday, insisting the GOP has become blinded by political considerations.

"I think Republicans have been so dug in on this notion of never raising taxes that it becomes difficult for them to see an obvious answer right in front of them," Obama said during an interview Thursday morning on "Keeping it Real with Al Sharpton."

The interview is part of a series of recorded radio interviews from the Oval Office Obama is doing with friendly hosts, including Sharpton, Joe Madison and Yolanda Adams.

Obama warned that automatic spending cuts that could start next week would affect jobs, including those of emergency personnel.

"At this point, we continue to reach out to the Republicans and say this is not going to be good for the economy," he said. "Whether or not we can move Republicans to do the right thing remains to be seen."

The Reverend started the conversation by asking the president about his thoughts on black history month. Obama said he enjoys watching the "next generation," including his daughters learn about black leaders in America's history.

"The other thing is to reflect on where we've made progress and where we've fallen short," he said. "These are the best of times and the worst of times for large parts of the African American community."

With sky-high unfavorables, the former scandal-dogged governor is still leading a crowded Republican primary field. He could go all the way.

Image by Joshua Drake / Reuters

WASHINGTON — At a recent event in South Carolina, Teddy Turner was working the room.

Turner, one of sixteen Republican candidates for the first congressional district seat, has unique reasons to be confident about his prospects: Although he's new to politics, he's the son of media mogul Ted Turner, and some Republicans consider him a dark horse to win his party's primary.

But when the frontrunner among his opponents entered the same room where Turner mingled with guests, Turner quickly turned self-deprecating.

"Welcome to the Mark Sanford show!" Turner said, according to a Republican aide who was later informed of the exchange.

In a congressional race attracting national attention for a host of reasons, not least among them that comedian Stephen Colbert's sister Elizabeth Colbert-Busch is running as a Democrat, Sanford is a main attraction.

It's unclear whether the spotlight will be more blessing than curse for the former South Carolina governor, who resigned in 2009 after he admitted to an affair and secret travels to Argentina to see his mistress. After the scandal, plenty of people wrote the eulogy for Sanford's political career.

But he's not dead yet.

In his first ad, released earlier this week, Sanford sought to address his biggest issue head-on in a straight-to-camera monologue.

"More recently, I've experienced how none of us go through life without mistakes," he said in the ad. "But in their wake we can learn a lot about grace, a God of second chances, and be the better for it."

There are a host of other Republicans hopefuls ready to stake their campaigns on voters not giving Sanford a second chance: State Sen. Larry Grooms, who raked in endorsements from Reps. Jeff Duncan and Mick Mulvaney on Thursday; Curtis Bostic is a member of the Charleston County Council, just as Sen. Tim Scott was before he won the first congressional district seat; Turner has hired former Sanford communications director Chris Drummond as a senior advisor, an indication his bid is serious.

"Frankly I don't even know everybody in it, so it's really wide open," South Carolina GOP chairman Chad Connelly said of the broad Republican primary field. He added, "We can pretty much be assured there will be a runoff."

The runoff will be held between the top two Republican vote-getters — or, Mark Sanford plus one.

"Everyone's running for second place except Mark," one South Carolina Republican explained, pointing to internal polling numbers that have shown Sanford leagues ahead of all other comers.

Should Sanford prevail in the primary runoff, the Republican source gave the former governor a 60 percent chance of winning in the general-election matchup against Colbert-Busch, who will likely be a formidable opponent, in no small part due her celebrity brother's fundraising potential.

Helping Sanford's chances in a general election: He has represented South Carolina's first district in Congress before, and the district has become slightly more conservative since it was redrawn during the redistricting process.

And his negatives are already polling high enough that his campaign could be more impervious to negative advertising than others.

There are still a number of wild cards, such as whether outside groups like Club For Growth will choose to endorse in the Republican primary, and whom.

And other candidates of both parties will push hard to contrast their sterling morals to Sanford's past shortcomings.

"This race is going to be a spectacle over the next few weeks," one GOP campaign aide said.

In three weeks, the Republican field will converge on Charleston, where the state Republican Party will hold a debate a few days before the primary vote. The discussion will almost certainly turn at one point to the former governor's past.

Sanford does not fear this moment.

A few months ago, Sanford spoke privately with a friend about what his future might hold and whether it would involve politics. Even at that early stage, well before any South Carolina congressional seat had opened up, Sanford was eager "to be part of the public debate again,'" the friend said.

Sanford knew that a return to the political arena would dredge up his past scandals — but he didn't care.

"It's not going to get any worse," the friend recalled Stanford saying. "I'll have to admit I failed my kids, failed my wife? I've already done that."

View Entire List ›

Under fire from conservatives, Lew fields a whopping 444 written questions from lawmakers.

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew,has answered more written questions than any every Treasury nominee since 1995 combined, a key sign of how hard Republicans in the Senate are pressing the current White House Chief of Staff in the run up to his confirmation fight.

Lew has given Senators written responses to 444 questions submitted to him, whereas the previous six nominees answered a combined total of 405 questions.

Tim Geithner answered 165 questions compared to Lew.

Henry Paulson answered 81.

John Snowe answered 70.

Paul O'Neill answered 34.

Larry Summers answered 37.

Bob Rubin answered 18.

Lew previously served as White House budget director during Obama's first term and in the Clinton administration, and has served as the White House Chief of Staff since last January. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is expected to hold a vote on Lew's nomination when Congress returns next week.

The conservative radio star blames insults to his intelligence and a “fear and panic” strategy rolled out by Democrats, Republicans and the media in response to proposed spending cuts.

View Video ›

"To be watching all of this, to be treated, to have my intelligence insulted common sense and intelligence insulted the way its being is it just makes me ashamed." —Rush Limbaugh

Via: washingtonexaminer.com

The short clip makes it appear as if Obama is pledging his support for the sequester rather calling on Congress to come up with a broad approach to avoid it, using his veto as part of a threat to force a plan.

The RNC's ad: Obama in 2011: "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

Source: youtube.com

Now, the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet, and if not, whether Congress is willing to stick to the painful deal that we made in August for the automatic cuts. Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts.

My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.

We need to keep the pressure up to compromise -- not turn off the pressure. The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. That's exactly what they need to do. That's the job they promised to do. And they've still got a year to figure it out.

Although Congress has not come to an agreement yet, nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead. They can still come together around a balanced plan. I believe Democrats are prepared to do so. My expectation is, is that there will be some Republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place. And, as I have from the beginning, I stand ready and willing to work with anybody that's ready to engage in that effort to create a balanced plan for deficit reduction.

Here's the full video of Obama's statement on the sequester in 2011.

View Video ›

Image by

An unwillingness by nominees like Lew to discuss specifics makes the meetings meaningless, spokesman says.

Image by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Chuck Grassley is the only member of the Senate Finance Committee who did not meet with the Obama Administration's nominee for Treasury Secretary, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, a fact that's unlikely to change.

The Iowa Senator has been one of Lew's toughest critics and has threatened to hold up Lew's nomination until he expands on several "unsatisfactory" answers to questions that Grassley asked of the nominee.

A Grassley spokesman told BuzzFeed that Grassley does not, in fact, make a practice of meeting with every nominee and thinks that meeting with Lew would be of much use, arguing that nominees often provide little in the way of substantive answers and the need for a public record of what few opinions they are willing to give.

Sen. Grassley declined to meet with Mr. Lew prior to the committee's hearing, as he's done with several other nominees. Nominees often can't talk about substantive issues in such meetings because they haven't formed views, they cite unfamiliarity with the specific issue, or they can't discuss pending issues because of the sensitivity of their unconfirmed positions. That's the case in many of Mr. Lew's answers to the written questions posed by senators, and that was the case with a wide variety of his verbal answers at the nomination hearing. Even if Sen. Grassley had met with Mr. Lew and discussed Mr. Lew's background, such as the loan from New York University and money in the Caymans, Sen. Grassley still would have wanted those questions answered in writing so there's a permanent record for other senators and the public to view.

A Nexis search found that Senator Grassley has meet with nominees in the past including a Treasury nominee. He met with Miriam Sapiro, President Obama's nominee for Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Mukasey, President Bush's nominee for Attorney General. Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Paul O'Neill, President Bush's nominee for Treasury Secretary, and Don Evans, a nominee of President Bush for Commerce Secretary among others.

A Grassley spokesperson added there wasn't a firm of policy of not meeting nominees and Grassley would often lead vetting of nominees during his time as Finance Committee chairman.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is expected to hold a vote on Lew's nomination when Congress returns next week.

Communities that would be hit hard by the sequestration are talking notice as Americans wait to hear if a deal will be reached or they will furloughed from work.

View Entire List ›

Careful not to distract from New Jersey's other election, the Newark mayor is keeping his Senate ambitions unofficial. “What I'm running right now is the city of Newark,” says Booker.

Image by Mark Bugnaski / AP

In a local radio interview Thursday evening, Newark mayor Cory Booker refused to confirm that he would run for U.S. Senate, saying only, "I'm exploring that viability" — a variation of the line he has repeated on air and in print since announcing his ambition for higher office last December.

Asked directly by Andrew Meyer, host of WBGO's "Newark Today," whether he would or would not run for Senate, Booker said, "No, what I am running right now is the city of Newark."

"I'm not bonding myself to doing it, and I'm not making any formal announcement," said Booker. "It's really my intention. It's a job that I want, but I'm not gonna flip on a campaign operation right now."

Later in the interview, Meyer cited a Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday — the findings show the mayor would "trounce" Geraldo Rivera, the Fox News host who is said to be weighing his own Senate bid — but Booker wouldn't play along. "I heard I also trounced Kermit the Frog as well," he said. "Any poll about individuals is premature."

When Booker first said last December that he would "consider" a run in 2014, it was for a Senate seat still occupied by the 89-year-old Democrat, Frank Lautenberg. But despite Lautenberg's recent announcement that he would retire in 2014 — making way for the Newark mayor, and for other potential Senate hopefuls — Booker has kept his ambitions unofficial, in an effort now to keep the focus, his and the media's, on this year's N.J. gubernatorial race.

"I've been in touch with Senate Buono this week," said Booker, of the race's presumptive Democratic nominee, state Senator Barbara Buono, who is up against Republican incumbent governor Chris Christie. "She's getting a lot of Democrats like me out there working for her already. That's where my focus is."

The Newark mayor, though, is said to be raising cash for his campaign already, and is heading, BuzzFeed confirmed last week, to a fundraiser in Palm Beach, Fla., in March

Booker, who has fewer than 500 days left in City Hall, also stressed that he has more to accomplish before the end of his second, and final, term in Newark. "As mayor, I've got 500 days left, and I'm in a hurry," he said. "I'm gonna run this city until my very last minute."

Booker made reference to a clock in his office — given to him by New York City's Michael Bloomberg, a fellow mayor whose last term is also nearing an end — with a note that read, "Don't count the days, make the days count."

The mayor added: "I will go on and be Senator, God willing, but I will still be a resident of the city of Newark."