Despite election results and Supreme Court ruling, Senator Mitch McConnell banks on again on the fight against the health care overhaul. So much for a change in direction.

A Tea Party member reaches for a pamphlet titled "The Impact of Obamacare", at a "Food for Free Minds Tea Party Rally" in Littleton, New Hampshire October 27, 2012.

Image by Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court may think its legal and the public didn't think it was worth dumping President Barack Obama over, but Republicans in the House and Senate alike are sure this time they can make Obamacare a winning political issue.

Republicans in both houses are pareparing for votes to defund or otherwise do away with Obama's signature reforms of the nation's healthcare laws.

And while over the last 18 months most of those efforts have been led by conservative outliers with little institutional support, this year's annual push is getting buy-in from the establishment.

"Obamacare is a costly mistake that we cannot afford and my preference would be to repeal it, root and branch," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday in a statement provided by an aide.

"We are going to have a number of spending bills and budget bills in the coming weeks. I know [Sen.] Ted Cruz is planning to offer an amendment to defund Obamacare and I look forward to supporting him," McConnell added.

McConnell Monday afternoon was expected to use the Senate floor as a platform to kick off Senate Republicans' attacks on the law, lamenting the 18,000 pages in new regulations that are being implemented by the administration under the law.

In fact nobody, including Republicans, expect anything remotely resembling repeal will pass. "No, it won't pass unless a lot of Democrats defect," a Senate GOP leadership aide acknowledged.

A Democratic aide was more blunt: "Obamacare is as likely to be repealed as [Sen.] Chuck Schumer is likely giving up press conferences for lent. It ain't gonna happen."

After Boehner's declaration that Obamacare was the law of the land and the entire GOP establishment called for the party to begin the process of soul searching, most observers — and many relieved Republicans — thought the annual fight over the health care overhaul was over.

For weeks, Republicans wrung their hands, worrying over the need to move beyond a party that is simply in opposition to Obama and Senate Democrats into a pro-active party with policy positions of their own.

But with the spring budget and spending season upon the two chambers — a period when both sides roll out as many politically minded messaging votes as possible — it's clear little of that thinking has taken hold in the short term.

In fact, with conservatives more firmly in control of major parts of the House and Senate GOP Conferences — and many members of leadership facing potential primary fights — Obamacare as a rallying cry for the right isn't going anywhere.

"From where you sit I can see how you'd think that. But from where I sit this is something that's always been on our plate. It never fell off," the leadership aide said.

No money changed hands, writers say.

Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych listens to a question during press conference in the Presidential palace in Vilnius, Lithuania, Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013.

Image by Mindaugas Kulbis / AP

WASHINGTON — Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych — the colorless, pro-Russian leader who beat back the country's "Orange Revolution" and later imprisoned a prominent political rival — would appear an unlikely favorite for American political bloggers of any political stripe.

But a spate of blog posts appeared in the American conservative blogosphere in last October defending Ukraine's president and his party in advance of the country's parliamentary elections. The bloggers involved, none of whom regularly cover Eastern European politics, say they were pitched by a public relations firm to write the stories, but that they weren't compensated for them, unlike bloggers who wrote in support of the Malaysian government.

The public relations push appears to be part of a lobbying effort in Washington, D.C. on behalf of the Ukraine through a related organization, not the government itself. The fact that Yanukovych is widely seen as a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin's makes his placement in conservative media somewhat puzzling.

At RedState, Breeanne Howe wrote multiple stories in the run-up to and immediately after the October 28 elections. One, "Ukraine Continues to Seek Independence," praised Yanukovych for "working, along with Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, to help the country become energy independent and join the European Union (EU) which would be the final steps to becoming truly independent from their long history with Russia." Another, on the 28th, explained Ukraine's rationale for its new elections system and provided some background on Yanukovych's ruling Party of Regions: "Originally, the party was supported Russian President Vladimir Putin but, to his disappointment, the Party of Regions has turned out to be more pro-Ukraine than pro-Russia." The election was "sure to be a successfully democratic election," Howe wrote. And the day after the election, Howe could report that "Yesterday Ukraine successfully held their most democratic elections in the history of their young independence."

In an email, Howe, whose normal areas of work include mostly domestic social issues, said that she had become interested in the topic after receiving a pitch from a communications firm.

"I agreed with the pitch and found the story to be compelling so I wrote a few posts about it," Howe said. "I've been pitched to write stories (from energy to foreign policy) by others as well. Sometimes this takes me out of my wheelhouse (generally speaking I focus on social issues) and I post a great deal of those stories. However, and I can't speak for anyone else that wrote on the subject, I can assure you that my employment at RedState is an unpaid labor of love and I was absolutely not employed by or on the payroll for the Ukranian gov't (or any other gov't for that matter)."

At Breitbart, Ben Shapiro also dove into Ukrainian matters around the time of the election. On October 22nd, he wrote, "Yanukovych is not the pro-Putin stooge many make him out to be, and Tymoshenko is not the pro-Western ally many make her out to be." And "President Obama's flip-flopping on the Yanukovych administration is accomplishing nothing but driving Yanukovych closer to Moscow. No wonder Ukraine is falling back into the Russian sphere of influence."

Later, he criticized Hillary Clinton for allegedly siding with the Ukrainian opposition despite its forming a coalition with far-right nationalist party Svoboda, and trying to "throw the election from current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich to his opposition."

"It's no surprise to see the woman who once hugged Suha Arafat shilling for a Ukrainian opposition that makes governing deals with reported Nazi knockoffs," Shapiro wrote.

"I have never been paid a dime by any political organization to write any piece whatsoever," Shapiro wrote in an email. "I was pitched the stories as I recall, but do not remember the source of the pitches. I found them newsworthy because they involved Hillary, Obama, and/or anti-Semitism." Shapiro later called to specify that he had never received money from any communications firms either, and had only ever been paid by his employers.

At the American Thinker and at Human Events, writer Seton Motley wrote a few pieces as well, criticizing Tymoshenko: "Luckily for Ukraine, they have an election on October 28. They have the opportunity to avert Putin-ian disaster -- and head West," Motley wrote on October 27. Another, on October 15, warned against a gas deal Russia was trying to negotiate with Ukraine, a story that echoed the circumstances under which Tymoshenko was tried and jailed.

In a phone conversation, Motley said that he never took any money to write the stories.

"I'm pretty fortunate that I can write about whatever floats in front of me that I like," Motley said. "I've always been into foreign policy. I'm 41 and a half, so I grew up in the Cold War and I was a virulent anti-communist. And now all those KGB apparatchiks are running Russia."

"Should the mainstream media have to disclose in every story that they're being funded by George Soros?" Motley asked.

The government of Ukraine has no current lobbying contracts filed under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. But an organization called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a group whose founding president was Leonid Kazhara, a MP for the Party of Regions, had two contracts filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 2012, with the Podesta Group and Mercury/Clark and Weinstock.

A spokesperson for The Podesta Group couldn't comment specifically on what services were rendered.

"We did do public affairs for them, lobbying and public relations for them," said Mercury/Clark and Weinstock spokesperson Lucy Claire Saunders. "I can't give you any more details than that."

A spokesperson for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bruce Jackson, a defense industry lobbyist and longtime booster of post-Communist countries' efforts to extricate themselves from Russia's sphere of influence said he "would think it's safe to assume that both orange and yellow have their lobbying teams on full steam, whatever that means."

"All of the post-Soviet states have far more lobbying and PR support than they should," said Jackson, who is president of the Project On Transitional Democracies, adding that he doubted that anything had been done to buy off American reporters.

"In Kiev it's certainly the case that reporters are given money all the time," he said.

A weekend report on the U.K.'s Daily Mail Online asserted “the Queen [would] back an historic pledge to promote gay rights” when signing the new commonwealth charter. Monday's announcement was brief — and contained no mention of LGBT rights.

View Video ›

While some cry foul over Obama's speech to Organizing For Action, White House says it's no big deal.

Image by Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File / AP

President Obama is getting close to the donors to a group founded from the remnants of his 2012 campaign this week. But the White House says that doesn't mean he's selling access.

Obama is scheduled to give a speech at to an Organizing For Action "dinner for donors and grassroots supporters" during an OFA conference in Washington this week. The news comes on the heels of the leadership of the group — the non-profit organization that is the successor to his campaign — rejecting corporate money and promising detailed donor disclosure after plans to invite top OFA donors to briefings with the president were roundly criticized.

At the White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama's speech to the donors is no different than any other speech he gives to groups that support his agenda.

"As the president does with numerous organizations that support his policy agenda, or the political agenda of the Democratic party — which is not the goal of this specific organization -- he will meet periodically with OFA," Carney said. "There are organizations all over Washington and around the country that support policy agendas in policy areas. That's what this organization does and I would refer you to them for more details on their efforts. They are not as I understand it, again from reading news reports, engaged in political campaigning or helping candidates win elections. They're focused on the policy proposals. The president speaks to the DCCC and the DNC and the DSCC. He'll speak to other outside organizations that have policy agendas and that's entirely appropriate."

After reporters pressed Carney on the comparison between OFA, which is focused on the president's agenda and is founded out of the remnants of his campaign organization, and groups like the DCCC, Carney dismissed any notion of pay-for-access.

"OFA was set up to promote the president's public policy agenda. And therefore, as anyone would expect, the president would likely meet with their representatives to discuss their agenda. Any notion that there's a price set for a meeting with the president is absurd and wrong," Carney said. "The comparison here is that the president goes and speaks to a variety of groups that support his agenda, including the DNC, the DSCC or the DCCC."

Reince Priebus tries to woo black voters with a “listening session” at a black Brooklyn megachurch. At the strip mall across the street, shoppers are still talking about that rich, white guy who ran for president.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus (L) looks on as Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney works on his iPad aboard his campaign plane on October 29, 2012.

Image by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Inside a Christian mega-church deep in the heart of Brooklyn, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus used a Monday afternoon press conference to preach inclusion, outreach, and political redemption for his struggling party.

But too many of the people in the predominantly black, low-income neighborhood surrounding the church, the Republican Party was not yet done atoning for its 2012 sins.

Priebus came to the Christian Cultural Center — an evangelical church in East New York that boasts 29,000 members, and is headed by prominent black Republican Rev. A.R. Bernard — to participate in what a press release called an "African-American engagement and listening session." It was the latest stop in a national tour for the RNC chief, ostensibly intended to gather advice before the party releases its official campaign post-mortem next week.

Complimenting the church as a "beautiful, successful place of renewal and revival," Priebus quipped, "We're hoping to get a little bit of that at the Republican National Committee."

To pull off a Republican resurrection, Priebus said, the party would have to work hard to "make the sale" to African-American voters, who left the Republican Party in large amid the civil rights battles of the 1960s, and who President Barack Obama won with 93 percent in 2012.

"Today is about listening and today is a start. I'm not coming here with all of the answers but I am coming here with an open heart and an open mind and a serious drive," Priebus told reporters before heading into a conference room with 20 black Republican activists for a closed-door "listening session."

As the press was ushered out of the meeting, Priebus was heard telling the group, "The question we really want to hone in on is... What are the things you believe the Democrats are doing really well?"

Meanwhile, at a strip mall across the street from the church, shoppers sounded common refrains as they talked politics with BuzzFeed. Each of the half-dozen people interviewed said they voted for Obama in November. They all complained, unprompted, that Republicans only cared about rich people. None of them had heard of Reince Priebus — but they had all heard of Mitt Romney.

And for most of them, Romney's candidacy was reason enough to steer clear of the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.

"You could tell from those private interviews," said Michael Watkins, a New York City Transit worker, referring to Romney's leaked "47 percent" tape. "He only cared about rich, white people. And there were even some white people who didn't like what he was saying there... We're not rich like them. We weren't born with a golden spoon in our mouths."

Watkins is hardly orthodox in his liberal beliefs. He praised Chris Christie and Michael Bloomberg for their business-friendly pragmatism, cited deficit reduction as a high priority, and condemned politicians who say, "you can't pray in schools, that's illegal, but here's some condoms."

But he has come to see the GOP as the party of Romney, and he said it would be hard for any Republican — aside from Christie, who impressed him with his aisle-crossing friendship with Obama during Sandy — to win his vote.

"They don't ever come here because they don't think a lot of blacks vote," he speculated. "But even if they did, they could talk and say whatever they want, but believing them? I don't know, that's tough."

Patrice Stafford, a travel consultant in Brooklyn, was offended by Romney's failure to pay tribute to the troops during his convention speech. She has two military veterans in her family, and felt the Republican nominee has little appreciation for their service, or for the economic hardships they face.

"He was too business-like. He was just talking to the executives in the board rooms," she said of Romney.

Stafford said she voted for a Republican when she lived in Oklahoma City and would be willing to do so again, but only if the candidate was nothing like Romney.

"He's got to talk to the line cooks, not the rich folks," she said.

Back in the church, Preibus acknowledged the damage Romney's "47 percent" remarks did to the party's minority outreach.

"I would say that Gov. Romney's unscripted moments weren't helpful," he said, answering a reporter's question about the incident.

Priebus said that's why he had come to the church; to make inroads into the community, to hear them out, and to "fix these demographic problems" in the party.

But the church itself is not without its perception problems in the neighborhood. Watkins, who has attended the church before, said he's heard rumors that members were forced to produce W-2s to prove they were paying enough tithing. Another woman complained that the services were "too commercial."

And Irmise Theodore, a home health aide who attends the church every other weeks, said she wasn't aware that the church was founded by a conservative.

Theodore was the most ardent Democrat interviewed Monday afternoon. Of Romney, she said, "I don't think he's racist, but he doesn't like black people very much." And she said, "Republicans are never going to be on behalf of black people, because they think we're all poor and don't contribute."

Informed that her pastor was a self-identified Republican, and was currently meeting with the head of the RNC, she was incredulous.

"Bernard?" she asked. "Really? I can't believe it."

Then, getting into her minivan, she said, "I guess I can't go there anymore."

From Nancy Reagan to Laura Bush, Obama is hardly the first First Lady to take on a relatively tame public policy issue.

Image by Orlin Wagner / AP

Every time Michelle Obama makes a media appearance to promote her Let's Move! campaign, she opens herself up to criticism from anyone with an internet connection. But despite recent attacks, her kid-focused activism is no more controversial than Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No To Drugs" campaign and far less incendiary than Hillary Clinton's health care reform work.

"It's not a controversial project," said Dr. Myra Gutin, an expert on first ladies at Rider University. "But there is that faction that is very much bothered by it because they feel like it's government intervening in the lives of citizens. To me it doesn't make sense why they're upset. The first lady is just saying it's important to eat better and exercise."

Michelle's work to encourage kids to stay active and eat more fruits and vegetables is as American as apple pie, said Ruth Mandel, Director of Rutgers' Eagleton Institute of Politics.

"Michelle has done her campaign in a way that shows herself and her own family," Mandel said. "They planted a garden. Who could have an argument? It's mom and apple pie. It's mom and healthy vegetables. The way in which it's framed is as far away from anything that could be controversial."

Gutin added that the public is unlikely to see Mrs. Obama comment on her husband's stances on immigration or gun control, partly because it would lower her historically high approval ratings.

"No first ladies want to spend their husband's political capital cleaning up any messes. And I think that's the same for Mrs. Obama," Gutin said. "Her issue is perceived as something the first lady would do. If she began to speak out against management of the war, or immigration or the economy, I think you would see that reflected in her polls."

But that hasn't stopped partisans from leveling broadsides at the First Lady. Every aspect of her life faces scrutiny. Fox television talk show host Bill O'Reilly slammed her brief Academy Awards appearance as "the most propagandistic thing I've ever seen," on Jay Leno's "The Tonight Show."

This morning on Twitter, FLOTUS answered questions about her Let's Move! program from users who labeled their questions #AskFLOTUS.

Mrs. Obama answered questions from users like "Anne D." who asked, "I'm interested in growing a kitchen garden with my 8 year old niece. Do you have any tips?" The first lady respsonded by tweeting, "Start small with something she can manage, like a container garden. Plant what she likes & keep it fun."

Amidst the moms wanting to know where to purchase organic produce and how to get their kids to get off the couch, #AskFLOTUS devolved into an attack on the White House at large.

Conservative Blogger Michelle Malkin's website Twitchy explained and celebrated the "hijack."

"And so it began, kicking off with questions about Benghazi. Yes, once again Twitter users are doing the job that most in the media won't do," a report on Twitchy read.

Hours after the 11:05 a.m. event, Twitter users continued to send questions unrelated to health issues--some commenters asked about the first lady's bangs, her husband's response to the attacks in Benghazi, and the cost of private family vacations.

View Entire List ›

“I'm not going to be guided by what's written or not written.”

David Remnick, Susan Rice, and Philip Gourevitch

Image by Rosie Gray/Buzzfeed

Susan Rice lightly rebutted a Washington Post story that identified her as next in line for the job of National Security Advisor on Monday, saying that she is "happy" in her role as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

"I am the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations," Rice said at a panel at Joe's Pub, a small venue in downtown Manhattan where she was appearing with New Yorker editor David Remnick and writer Philip Gourevitch. "I'm going to continue happily serving in that role as long as the president wants me to."

"What you read in the newspaper is not necessarily what is bound to happen," Rice said. "I'm not going to be guided by what is written or not written."

As for Tom Donilon, the current National Security Advisor, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told BuzzFeed on Monday that, "We've seen some speculation out there, but Tom is not leaving."

Controversy over the Benghazi attack and her response to it sank Rice's potential nomination as Secretary of State this past winter, and she was left to continue in her current job. The Post called the possibility of becoming the National Security Advisor a "dramatic twist of fortune for Rice."

The rest of the discussion at the panel centered on Syria, Iran, the struggling Israel-Palestinian peace process, conflict in Africa, and Rice's personal heroes ("my parents").

Asked if the United States would intervene more in the Syrian conflict, Rice said, "With respect to Syria, we're constantly debating and wrestling with the challenge of what's best to be done."

"We are the foremost provider of assistance to those in Syria," Rice said. But "we've chosen not to add to the militarization of the conflict at this stage."

On the topic of Iran, Rice reiterated the administration's position on prevention as opposed to containing Iran's nuclear program, and called the recent P5+1 negotiations in Almaty, Kazakhstan "actually rather useful."

Remnick asked Rice about the prospects for a two-state solution, and said his impression was that the administration, faced with "limited political capital" in its second term, had decided that "there's no way" that capital will be spent on negotiating the peace process.

"It's not just being committed, it's about rolling up our sleeves and doing what we can to bring it about," Rice said, noting that the president is visiting the region next week.

"It would be, I think, premature and presumptuous for the president to show up in the region with a peace plan without the benefit of having the opportunity to first sit down and discuss it" with leaders from both sides," Rice said.

Rice said the Arab Spring would be "complex and messy for years to come," and said the administration was serious about problems in Africa including the conflicts in the Congo and human rights abuses in other countries: "Our interests in Africa are multiple," she said.

Before walking offstage, Rice took a few French fries from a woman sitting in the front row, having referenced the aroma of the fries a few times throughout the panel. The audience applauded.

The House, led by an out gay speaker, voted 39-26 in favor of the measure Tuesday. “Just make sure… that you feel confident that that vote is something you will be proud of in the future,” Speaker Ferrandino told members.

Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino and Rep. Sue Schafer share the podium as they speak on the civil unions bill in the House Chamber on Monday, March 11, 2013.

Image by Ed Andrieski / AP

WASHINGTON — The Colorado House voted a bill legalizing civil unions Tuesday on a 39-26 vote that sends the bill to Gov. John Hickenlooper's desk. He has said he will sign it into law.

The bill had been considered in the previous session of the Colorado legislature, but Republican leadership in the House stopped the measure from advancing. When Democrats took the majority in the House in November 2012, they elected Rep. Mark Ferrandino, an out gay representative from Denver who said he would advance the measure, as House speaker.

Addressing the House today, Ferrandino, according to a statement released by his office, said, "Yes, our focus is on jobs, but there are other things we can do." Referencing himself and the other four out LGBT state representatives, he asked the House to recognize "that our love is the same as everyone else's love, and that our families are the same as everyone else's families."

Getting personal, he told other members, "Look at yourself in the mirror. Just make sure that you feel confident that you're making the right vote and that you feel confident that that vote is something you will be proud of in the future."

Two Republicans, Reps. Cheri Gerou and Carole Murray joined the House Democrats in voting for the bill.

Colorado lawmakers were limited in the action they could take because the state's constitution was amended in 2006 to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Passed as Amendment 43, the state's constitution now says, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

Earlier, Colorado also had been home to Amendment 2, a constitutional ban on any protections for gay people that was later struck down as unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court.

To that end, Tim Gill, a prominent LGBT donor who funds the Gill Foundation based in Colorado, told BuzzFeed in a statement, "We've come a long way from the days of Amendment 2 to today's post-partisan win for all families. Scott [Miller, Gill's husband] and I want to thank all those who helped Colorado take this important step toward full equality. We're proud Coloradans."

Colorado's one out LGBT member of Congress, Rep. Jared Polis celebrated the news from his state, but suggested the limitations on the bill by noting this was just one step toward equality there.

"I applaud the Colorado State legislature for their passage of the Colorado Civil Union Act. This is an important victory for Colorado and for the gay and lesbian community. I want to thank Speaker Mark Ferrandino and Senator Pat Steadman, as well as Brad Clark of One Colorado, for their leadership on this issue," Polis said in a statement provided to BuzzFeed. "This is a monumental step on the road to equality in Colorado."

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has said he will sign the civil unions bill.

Image by Pool New / Reuters

Of his Citadel class. “Help me finish what my dad couldn't.”

John Santorum, son of the the former Pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate, has launched his own campaign for president of his class at the Citadel, the Charleston, South Carolina, military academy.

His platform — according to a sparse Facebook page appears to be as conservative as his father's:

Courting gubernatorial voters Tuesday at a Baptist church in Paterson, N.J. “We're all human beings,” says Christie.

At a town hall appearance Tuesday in Paterson, N.J., Gov. Chris Christie made a candid reelection pitch to a crowd of 700 constituents who all but certainly did not vote for the Republican four years ago during his first gubernatorial race.

In 2009, then-incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine received 85 percent of the Paterson vote — about 17,300 votes in total, compared to Christie's 2,200 — in the heavily Democratic city where one-third of residents are African-American, and more than half of residents of every race identified as Hispanic.

"The purpose of spending this time together is it becomes harder to hate up close," said Christie, as the event came to a close. "We realize we're all human beings. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. We all have our insecurities. We all have our great successes and our disappointments. And as we get to know each other, it becomes a lot harder then to yell and scream at each other."

"What I know is this: My job is to work for the people who elected me, and not to work for my political party first," said Christie. "My first job is for New Jersey, regardless of what party I belong to."

Christie, who is up for reelection this fall against Democratic state Senator Barbara Buono, has a 56 percent approval rating among non-whites in New Jersey, according to a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll out Tuesday morning.

Confusion over why Republicans are doing this again after losing in 2012.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) holds up a copy of the House Budget Committee 2014 Budget Resolution as he speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2013.

Image by Carolyn Kaster / AP

WASHINGTON — The White House wants you to be very, very afraid of the newest version of Paul Ryan's Republican budget proposal. But administration officials also scratched their heads Tuesday at Ryan's latest budget plan, wondering why after Ryan was defeated at the polls along with Mitt Romney Republicans are sidling up to him again.

At the White House press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Obama "certainly believes that Congressman Ryan is sincere in what he believes his budget represents in terms of policy priorities, and he commends Congressman Ryan for the effort, but there is no question that the Ryan budget, again, represents a series of policy choices that this president profoundly disagrees with."

In a written statement to the press, Carney was largely just as diplomatic. But in private, senior administration officials were much harder on the Ryan plan, warning that it could mean deep cuts to domestic programs and even saying it could have a negative impact on the economy.

For now, the White House appears to be keeping it publicly diplomatic in the midst of the president's so-called "charm offensive" with Congressional Republicans. But that doesn't mean the administration is more comfortable with this proposal than it was with previous versions. If anything, after the resounding win last November, the officials seemed confused as to why the House GOP would get behind a plan that still calls for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

In an interview with ABC News Tuesday, President Obama showed a bit of the behind-the-scenes criticism of Ryan's plan when asked if he will propose a balanced budget when his proposal comes out next month.

"We're not gonna balance the budget in 10 years because if you look at what Paul Ryan does to balance the budget, it means that you have to voucher-ize Medicare, you have to slash deeply into programs like Medicaid, you've essentially got to — either tax — middle-class families a lot higher than you currently are, or you can't lower rates the way he's promised," Obama told ABC. "So it's really, you know, it's a reprise of the same legislation that he's put before."

For Connecticut lawmakers, gun control takes priority — and the majority of their time. “Whatever I can do to help them is part of what I need to do,” Rep. Esty says.

Image by T.J. Kirkpatrick / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Three months removed from the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the urgency for many lawmakers to pass some manner of gun control legislation has quieted somewhat as the enormousness of the political slog ahead has set in.

But for Connecticut's congressional delegation, whose schedules are still filled with meetings, interviews, and events pressing for reform to gun laws, Newtown might as well have happened yesterday.

"Every day since [Dec. 14], Newtown has lived with the consequences of political inaction," said Rep. Elizabeth Esty, whose district includes Newtown.

On Tuesday, the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee moved forward a bill to require background checks for most gun purchasers, a group of bicyclists arrived at the Capitol from Newtown to urge action in response to the shooter who killed 26 people, many of them children, at Sandy Hook Elementary in December.

"It's the efforts outside the Beltway, it's those efforts that will drive change," Rep. Mike Thompson, who leads the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said from behind a podium on the Capitol's west front lawn. "That's how things get done in Washington, D.C."

But those efforts won't do any good if Washington isn't forced to respond, a fact that was underscored by the presence of the state's entire delegation at Tuesday's event.

The state's congressional delegation has found itself inextricably linked to the prominent issue of how best to reform federal gun laws, if at all — their schedules monopolized by efforts to divine a path forward on gun control while satisfying their constituents' acute desire for rapid, substantive change.

Whether an assault weapons ban, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, or universal background checks are legislatively feasible is beside the point.

"The number one job as a member of Congress is to take care of your constituents and the folks in your district, and it's hard to imagine a need as great as this," Esty said. "Whatever I can do to help them is part of what I need to do."

Esty, a freshman Democrat, focused much of her campaign on issues like manufacturing and health care. But, just one month before she took office, her priorities were shifted.

"It's refocused my agenda; I know that," Esty told the Connecticut Mirror shortly after the shooting in Newtown.

On the agenda now for the Connecticut delegation, particularly Esty and the state's senators, is gun control and little else. It requires taking any meeting even tangentially related to Newtown; returning, tic-like, in interviews to the topic of gun control; and staging any and all manner of news events, including one at a gun range and the one at the foot of the Capitol on Tuesday.

The latter event was six to eight weeks in the making and marked the end point to a more than 400-mile bicycle ride from Newtown, during which former Rep. Gabby Giffords tweeted encouragement.

"This day will be remembered," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal during his prepared remarks. "It will not be forgotten. It will not simply be erased by other events."

But Blumenthal and his Connecticut colleagues understand that gun control remains a politically perilous issue, and that foils such as the National Rifle Association are still keen to maintain the status quo. Congress is also an institution characterized by its inertia, if for different reasons — and fighting that force on any one topic is in itself a full-time job.

"I think it's difficult to get this place to think about anything for more than a few days," said Sen. Chris Murphy, a freshman Democrat whom Esty succeeded in the House. "But the gun reform agenda has had staying power in part because I think Newtown really did transform the way America looks at this issue."

The brute force of constant publicity has bolstered whatever organic staying power the issue has. Indeed, Murphy concedes, it has taken up "the majority of our time."

"The families want to be here lobbying in Washington, and we've spent a lot of time talking with them about how to effectively represent their views and helping them get meetings in Washington, meeting with them back in Connecticut — so just helping to manage the advocacy of Newtown community members has taken a lot of our time when we're not even fully staffed as an office," Murphy said. "We're still hiring staff and we've got a pretty big project with the issue of gun reform."

The soundtrack to his announcement video sounds an awful lot like “Halo.”

George P. Bush kicked off his political career Tuesday evening with a video announcing his candidacy for Texas Land Commissioner, praising his home state, touting the need for more domestic drilling — and doing it all against a soundtrack that closely resembles Beyoncé's hit pop ballad, "Halo."

The son of former Florida governor, Bush has long been expected to join the family political dynasty with a run for public office. It's unclear, however, whether Beyoncé, an ardent supporter of President Barack Obama and a Houston native, supports Bush's campaign.

BuzzFeed asked a spokesperson for the singer whether she supported Bush using her song in his ad, but did not receive an immediate response.

Here's Bush's announcement video

And here's Beyoncé's song

After 2012, Democrats are now arguing tax increases can win them votes. “Reaganomics is effectively dead. We're dealing with Obamanomics now,” says Stanford.

Image by Jose Luis Magana / AP

As he gears up for a likely presidential run in 2016, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is testing a risky new political calculus for the post-Obama era: Win votes by raising taxes.

O'Malley, who is thought to be an all but certain player in the next race for the White House, surprised some observers when he proposed last week to raise taxes on gasoline statewide as part of a transportation plan designed to repair failing infrastructure and reduce commute time.

It's the type of legislation an aspiring presidential candidate wouldn't have touched a few years ago — something even O'Malley alluded to last week, when he told The Baltimore Sun that there isn't "a revenue more unpopular than the gas tax."

But emboldened by President Barack Obama's sweeping 2012 electoral victory — built largely on a pledge to raise rates on the wealthiest Americans — Democrats are now making the case that a record of tax increases isn't the albatross it once was, as long as they pay for substantive improvements for constituents.

With Obama's reelection — and his subsequent victory in Congress over a "fiscal cliff" deal to raise taxes on individuals who earn an income higher than $400,000 each year — we've entered a period of "Obamanomics," said Jason Stanford, a Democratic consultant and opposition researcher.

"It used to be you could never even talk about raising taxes — that would kill you," said Stanford. "Now we have even Boehner voting to raise taxes on the rich. Reaganomics is effectively dead. We're dealing with Obamanomics now."

Of course, it's one thing for Obama to find success in pledging tax increases on the rich during a presidential campaign against an opponent, Mitt Romney, defined publicly by his wealth. It's another for O'Malley to propose a gas tax that will hit every car-driving resident of his state — including the middle class and the working poor.

The two-term governor, for his part, is making the case that the gas tax will generate $3.4 billion in additional revenue for badly needed transportation projects and create 44,000 jobs over the next five years in Maryland.

But a tax increase — let alone one on gasoline — has for decades been political black water for presidential hopefuls.

In 2004, George W. Bush launched a television ad offensive in 18 states to link John Kerry to a 50-cent gas tax — "Some people have wacky ideas, like taxing gasoline more," read the track — even though the Democratic nominee had never voted for such a tax. And even before that, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton spent months in 1992 arguing over the number of times the Arkansas governor had raised taxes and fees in his state — "128 times" was the Republican refrain; though Arkansas's Department of Finance and Administration said the true figure was 127.

Whatever the number was, the line on the stump was still the same: "I don't care whether it's 128 times — or maybe they're right, it's 127 times — but we know this," said Vice President Dan Quayle, on the trail in Texas in September of '92. "Bill Clinton has already promised the American people that the first thing he's going to do as president is to raise your taxes."

Democrats, though, say they see a shifting political landscape in which having a record with a gas tax would no longer harpoon a presidential campaign.

"It used to be straight dogma that you'd never call for a tax increase," said another Democratic strategist and researcher, who preferred to speak without attribution. "It will have an impact in the general election — that's the Republican playbook — but if it's an attack coming from a member of Congress, then they've raised taxes, too."

"What this really gets to is that the Republicans have been using the same playbook since the 1980s, and it gets less effective each time," said the strategist.

Bob Shrum, a veteran Democratic consultant, said he couldn't see the tax "becoming a big issue in 2016," but added, "I think raising gas taxes when prices are high already can be a tough sell. On the merits O'Malley is doing the right thing, but it's probably politically risky."

The transportation plan, introduced last week, is the newest iteration of an overhaul the governor has pushing for since 2007. The bill would put a new state sales tax on the wholesale price of gas — two cents this summer, and an additional seven cents next summer — while reducing the excise gas tax by five cents, and adjusting it in future years in tandem with inflation. (The bill calls for another seven cents in a sales tax increase in 2015, unless Congress votes to allow states to tax Internet purchases.) The governor says the plan, which was endorsed by editorials in the Sun and The Washington Post, will repair infrastructure damage and alleviate traffic congestion in Maryland, which has the longest average daily commute of any state in the country.

If the tax does cause O'Malley problems in a presidential race, it will be in a tight primary contest against New York governor Andrew Cuomo — "Cuomo has been able to cut taxes and balance budgets, so that's one possible contrast point," said the Democratic strategist. Cuomo did cut taxes for most New Yorkers in 2011, but he also raised them on the wealthiest residents, going back on a campaign promise to not raise rates at all.

In a general election against the Republican nominee, "where there would absolutely be a Republican ad," the strategist said, citing the Bush-Cheney television spot against Kerry in 2004.

The transportation plan has already been a target for Americans for Tax Reform — the anti-tax group headed by Republican power broker Grover Norquist — which has dubbed O'Malley "Barack Obama, Jr.," and blacklisted his state as "one of the most hostile places for taxpayers to live."

"Here we have a guy who has already raised taxes on millionaires and hundreds-of-thousandaires, and now he's coming back for people who drive cars," Norquist told BuzzFeed. "There's nothing quite so obvious as this. I'm happy and delighted that he is doing this, because it puts the tax issue front and center if he runs."

"He wants to run for president, but there's a problem — that's gonna be awfully hard to do," said Norquist. "He can't say, 'Oh, I'll only tax rich people.' That's obviously not the truth. He will go down the food chain."

But O'Malley's staff points to Republican governor Bob McDonnell — also thought to be a prospective 2016 candidate — who has proposed a similar transportation overhaul for his state. McDonnell's plan would eliminate its gas tax, but replace it with a mix of sales taxes that vary by region, so that the average resident would pay $10 to $15 more each month on transportation.

"This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It's a jobs issue," said O'Malley's director of strategic communications, Teddy Davis. "Whether it's Virginia's Bob McDonnell or Maryland's Martin O'Malley, governors of both parties recognize the need for transportation plans that create jobs and ease traffic congestion."

Taken together, McDonnell's bill and Congressional Republicans' recent retreat from their pledge to never raise taxes, make for better odds on O'Malley's bet that the Maryland gas tax is worth its weight in possible political capital.

"The House Republicans are making this less damaging to Martin O'Malley," said the Democratic strategist. "It's more often being seen by the average American that Republicans are unwilling to raise the revenue necessary for government."

"If you're running for governor of West Virginia, say, then nothing's changed, but in the terrain that the 2016 campaign will be fought on, those old standards aren't working anymore," the strategist said.

This article has been updated to include more context on Cuomo's tax record.

Two industries, the same tactic: money to minority groups and politicians. Local politics at its grimmest.

Image by Allison Joyce / Getty Images

In 1986, when Mayor Ed Koch and the New York City Council proposed setting up non-smoking sections in restaurants, the tobacco industry ginned up protests from various recipients of its largesse.

Among them was the local NAACP, which drew a stinging rebuke in a New York Times editorial that May 22:

Philip Morris has another friend on the committee: the New York State Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Black smokers are a valuable, assiduously courted part of the cigarette market - and black men have the rising lung cancer rate to prove it. Nonetheless, Hazel Dukes, the chapter's president, joins the cigarette company in its claim that anti-smoking regulations are discriminatory — simply because blacks are more likely to smoke than whites. Philip Morris's call on racial fear and resentment is regrettable — but no more than the reluctance of Mrs. Dukes and other black leaders to reject it.

It is rather hard, these days, to find someone to tell you that the requirement of a non-smoking section in restaurants is a racial injustice. But Tuesday, the Times' Nick Confessore reported on a similar fight, on similar turf, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempts to impose restrictions on some fattening food over the objections of groups that claim to speak for black and Hispanic New Yorkers, and which also take vast sums from the beverage industry. And you don't have to see a parallel between smoking and Big Gulps, or even to suspend your loathing of the "nanny" mayor, to see the parallels between two rounds of local politics at its grimmest.

"Dozens of Hispanic and African-American civil rights groups, health advocacy organizations and business associations have joined the beverage industry in opposing soda regulation around the country in recent years, arguing that such measures — perhaps the greatest regulatory threat the soft-drink industry has ever faced — are discriminatory, paternalistic or ineffective," Confessore writes. "Many of these groups have something else in common: They are among the recipients of tens of millions of dollars from the beverage industry."

There are politicians, and causes, who have no trouble raising money. The politicos who represent Manhattan, mostly; causes, like rolling back the unionization of education, popular with people who work in finance. Politicians who represent poor neighborhoods in Brooklyn and the Bronx, however, struggle to fundraise; and organizations aiming to speak for poor communities are often struggling to keep the lights on. And so it was, for instance, that Brooklyn Rep. Ed Towns used to be known on Capitol Hill as the "Marlboro Man" — the industry's staunchest ally in Congress.

This is a dynamic that many industries who prey on the urban poor capitalize on. The subprime mortgage industry, in particular, generously funded local advocates, who made the case for them (remember this argument?) that to bar what critics called "predatory" interest rates was to discriminate against people with bad credit. And it isn't just advocates for poor communities. Nonprofit work is, generally, a hand-to-mouth business, and a range of groups have shown themselves corruptible. Gay and lesbian organizations, for instance, embarrassed themselves with paid advocacy for everything from telecommunications to gambling.

But the parallels between the tobacco and soda industries are truly striking, as a recent Yale survey of the two detailed.

"For decades, the tobacco industry used perceptions of social responsibility to great effect. Contributions to minority and women's organizations offered implicit encouragement of leaders to target concerns other than smoking," the authors wrote. "Leaders of African American communities faced a very real conflict: either to help the community by accepting money or to speak out about the disproportionate toll of tobacco on the health of minority populations."

There must have been, some allowed back in the 1970s, some shred of logic or integrity to urban pols' and groups' advocacy for the tobacco industry. Actually, in the light even of recent history, it's a particularly embarrassing episode of a large industry's deep dive into ugly, transactional, and nickel-and-dime local politics.

Libertarians who oppose Bloomberg's soda ban on the merits probably shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that their allies' talk of racial justice is any more than that. Bloomberg, though, should probably have seen it coming: His political success has been premised, in no small part, on the thick coating of private money he's spread around to some of the same community groups, an investment repaid in political support, if not policy allegiance.

“Any effort to dictate who we love and to whom we commit ourselves is unfair and it is wrong,” Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden says in a new video.

WASHINGTON — Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden is putting his voice — and face — behind the marriage equality effort in the state, calling it "the fundamental, defining civil rights issue of our time."

In a video for Equality Delaware, provided exclusively to BuzzFeed Wednesday, Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, talks about his support for marriage equality and the importance of achieving marriage equality in the state.

"Any effort to dictate who we love and to whom we commit ourselves is unfair and it is wrong," Biden, a Democrat, said, "All Delawarians should be able to marry the person they love."

Although the state currently has civil unions available to same-sex couples, a bill is expected to be introduced this spring in the legislature to allow same-sex couples to marry. According to a recent poll conducted for Equality Delaware, 54 percent support marriage equality there and 37 percent oppose it.

"Attorney General Biden has always been a steadfast champion for treating every citizen equally under the law," said Equality Delaware president Lisa Goodman. "To have his support — as our highest law enforcement official and as a veteran — is a true honor. The momentum continues to grow as we anticipate a marriage bill in the coming weeks."

In the past month, Biden also joined other states' attorneys general in urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's Proposition 8 marriage ban and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Gov. Jack Markell, also a Democrat, also has said he supports the marriage equality bill, calling marriage equality "inevitable."

The latest comments, the furthest the president has gone in supporting a constitutional right to marriage equality, come in an interview with ABC News.

Image by Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT

WASHINGTON — President Obama now says he cannot imagine a constitutional justification that would lead to a court upholding a ban on allowing same-sex couples to marry, the furthest statement in support of same-sex couples' marriage rights made by the president.

In an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, Obama said a state would need a "good justification" for treating gay and lesbian couples differently than straight couples in order for a court to find a ban on same-sex marriages to be constitutional.

But when Stephanopoulos asked Obama if he could imagine such a justification, Obama replied, "I can't, personally. I cannot."

The Supreme Court will be hearing a challenge to one such ban, California's Proposition 8, on March 26. The Obama administration weighed in to support the effort to have Proposition 8 found unconstitutional, but the brief did not directly state that the administration viewed all such bans as unconstitutional.

Here's the transcript of that portion of the interview provided by ABC News:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you a question about gay marriage. When Robin was here last spring, you came out in favor of gay marriage. But you also said at the time that you wanted it to be a state-by-state–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. Yeah.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –issue, it would be a mistake to nationalize it. Do you still believe that, or do you now believe that gay marriage is a right guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, I've gotta tell you that– in terms of practical politics, what I've seen is a healthy debate taking place state by state, and not every state has the exact same attitudes and cultural mores. And I– you know, my thinking was that this is traditionally a state issue and– that it will work itself out.

On the other hand– what I also believe is that the core principle that people don't get discriminated against– that's one of our core values. And it's in our constitution. It's in– the– you know, 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. And– from a legal perspective, the– the– the bottom line is, is that gays have historically been discriminated against and I do think that courts have to apply what's called heightened scrutiny, where they take a careful look. If there's any reason for– gays and lesbians to be treated differently, boy, the government better–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So banning gay marriage–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: –have a really good–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –is discrimination?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, what I– what I believe is that– if– if the states don't have a good justification for it, then it probably doesn't stand up to constitutional muster

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you imagine one?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So– well, I can't, personally. I cannot. That's part of the conc– reason I said, ultimately, I think that– you know, same-sex couples should be able to marry. That's my personal position. And, frankly, that's the position that's reflected– in the briefs that we filed– in the Supreme Court.

My hope is that– the Court looks at the evidence and– and in the California case, for example, the only reason presented for treating gays and lesbians differently was, "Well, they're gay and lesbian." There wasn't– a real rationale beyond that. In fact– you know, all the other– rights and– and– responsibilities of– a civil union were identical to marriage.

It's just you couldn't call it marriage. Well, at that point, what you're really sayin' is– "We're just gonna treat these folks differently because of who they are." And– and I do not think– that's– that's who are as Americans. And– and frankly, I think– American attitudes have evolved, just like mine have– pretty substantially and fairly quickly, and I think that's a good thing.

“We're in a very good place on the president's commitment to help,” Chairman Israel says.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — The congressional campaign arm of the Democratic Party has been keeping President Barack Obama abreast of its recruitment efforts, after Obama said he would play a more active role in helping Democrats to win control of the House in 2014.

"We're in a very good place on the president's commitment, and the president is in a very good place on the president's commitment," Rep. Steve Israel, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told committee supporters during a presentation Wednesday.

"The president has also asked us to keep him apprised of some of our recruiting priorities and we've been sharing that information with the White House, and they've been very receptive to it," he added.

Obama has a major stake in whether Democrats can reclaim control of the House in 2014: House Republicans have shown themselves to be effective obstructionists on most legislation the president supports, and he would be better able to pursue his policy priorities with Congress on his side.

The president will meet with House Republicans at the Capitol on Wednesday as part of what has been termed a "charm offensive" in the Washington dialect — but few people believe the outreach will do much to make the House more amenable to the president's legislative wish list.

As many as eight events in support of the Newark mayor's Senate race are slated for March and April. Katzenberg and Weintraub in Los Angeles.

Image by Olivier Douliery / Abaca Press

Cory Booker, the two-term Democratic mayor of Newark and all but certain candidate for U.S. Senate next year, has launched a quiet but aggressive fundraising campaign that will take him to as many as eight events, from Manhattan to Florida to California, over the next month and a half, BuzzFeed has learned.

Since announcing last December that he would "consider" a bid for the Senate, Booker has declined to make his candidacy official, saying only that he won't make an announcement until after the New Jersey gubernatorial race this November.

But event RSVP forms posted on the mayor's political website — hidden from the homepage, but still searchable to the public — make clear that his still nascent fundraising efforts are robust, and that his campaign operation is already well underway.

The event listings show that Booker will head to Manhattan on March 21 to Quinn Emanuel, a white-shoe law firm, for a lunch reception; to Newark, N.J., later that night for a dinner at the restaurant, Adega Grill; to Florida for two private-home receptions, first in Ft. Lauderdale on March 22, and next in Palm Beach the following night; to Washington D.C. on April 1, for a reception at the DC Society of Young Professionals; and then back to New York on April 9, for an event at the home of Barry Coller, the physician in chief of Rockefeller University Hospital.

Later in the month, Booker will take a swing through California, first to Los Angeles on April 25, to hobnob with a diverse group of Hollywood bigwigs who in past campaigns have offered their support to an array of candidates from both parties.

The fundraiser, according to its RSVP form, will be held at the home of major motion-picture producer Jerry Weintraub, whose most recent project was a largely positive documentary, 41, on former Republican president George H.W. Bush. According to campaign finance reports, Weintraub has already contributed $5,000 to Booker's political action committee, CoryPAC, and was a supporter of New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg — the retiring Senator whose seat Booker will run for next year — during his most recent and last campaign in 2007. Although the producer did not give to either Obama or Mitt Romney in the last presidential race, he did contribute to John McCain's campaign in 2008.

Other guests slated to attend the Los Angeles fundraiser — where tickets run cost $5,000 — were some of the president's biggest West Coast supporters last year.

The list of star-studded attendees includes Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation who helped launched the pro-Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA; Chairman and CEO of Walt Disney, Bob Iger; Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos and his wife, Nicole Avant, the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas; interior decorator and major Obama bundler, Michael Smith, who redesigned the Oval Office for the president in 2010; CEO of Sony, Michael Lynton; former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown; producer J.J. Abrams; director Rob Weiner; actor Bruce Willis; and HBO executive Michael Lombardo, who hosted the fundraiser with LGBT leaders last year that inspired Vice President Joe Biden to speak out, to the surprise of the White House, in support of marriage equality on NBC's Meet the Press.

Gerald Parsky — the chairman of the private investment firm Aurora Capital Group, a former appointee to five Republican presidents, and a fundraiser for both of George W. Bush's presidential campaigns — is scheduled to attend the Los Angeles fundraiser for Booker, despite having given more recently to Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008.

Before leaving California, Booker is scheduled to appear in San Francisco the day after the Los Angeles fundraiser, at the law firm, Keker & Van Nest.

The Newark mayor is already well ahead in early polling of his likely primary opponent, New Jersey's Rep. Frank Pallone, who has long expressed interest in the Senate seat. A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll, released Wednesday morning, shows Booker leads the congressman 50 percent to four percent.

But Booker's fundraising blitz this spring will help him play catch up to or exceed the $3.5 million cash Pallone already has on hand. But the success of Booker's campaign swing won't be disclosed until April 15, when the Federal Election Committee requires Senate campaigns to file their first quarterly reports of the year.

A spokesperson for Booker did not respond to BuzzFeed's request for comment.

Rep. Carter emerges from their presidential lunch confident Obama may move forward with the pipeline. The White House rejects the claim: “He did not indicate either way.”

Obama waves as he arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — In a closed door meeting with House Republicans Wednesday, President Barack Obama left the door open to approving a controversial new oil pipeline that his administration has thus far resisted.

Obama has blocked the completion of the Keystone pipeline, citing environmental concerns, but Rep. John Carter emerged from their lunch said the president indicated he would drop his objection.

The White House moved quickly to reject the notion that the president said anything definitive during the meeting after BuzzFeed first reported Carter's assertion.

"He did not indicate either way. As you know, the assessment is ongoing, and the State Department recently began the public comment period following the release of their Draft SEIS," a White House official said.

Other Republicans present at the meeting said they came away less sure of the president's plans.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp told reporters following the meeting that it was ultimately unclear what Obama will do on Keystone.

The conservative lawmaker said his comments on the pipeline were "typical of this president. Maybe, maybe maybe. There was nothing certain."

According to Republicans, the meeting was cordial, with Obama speaking for just under 30 minutes before taking questions.

But "it wasn't just platitudes and niceties. It was substantive," said Rep. Michael Grimm.

They talked about a range of issues, including entitlement reform, gun control, immigration and tax reform. "We even talked about reopening the White House tours," Grimm said

Rep. Darrell Issa said the toughest question asked came from Rep. Candice Miller, who asked Obama, "Why shut down White House tours instead of canceling the White House Christmas party?"