The highest-ranking Catholic in Congress praises the choice.

Image by Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, the highest-ranking Catholic in Congress, has a message for the new Pope.

"Congratulations," Boehner said Wednesday during a previously scheduled news conference with reporters.

While Boehner and other House Republicans were in a closed meeting with President Barack Obama, the cardinals selected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the next leader of the Catholic Church. Bergoglio will serve under the name Pope Francis.

Obama announced to Boehner and other House Republicans during the meeting that the next Pope had been chosen; Bergoglio, who hails from Argentina, was revealed as the next Pope shortly after the meeting ended.

"I'm happy that they were able to come to a choice as quickly as they did," Boehner said. "I think that reaching out to beyond the traditional continent of our Church is another big step in the right direction for the Church."

Mitch McTortoise?

Via: @EthylRosenberg

Then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio bungled the fight against Argentina's “Equal Marriage Law” in 2010. “Let's not be naive,” he wrote of same-sex marriage. “This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan.”

Newly elected Pope Francis, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, appears on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica after being elected by the conclave of cardinals, at the Vatican, March 13, 2013.

Image by Dylan Martinez / Reuters

Shortly after Pope Benedict XVI announced his retirement, the gay rights activist who was the first to legally marry his partner in Latin America sent out a jubilant tweet. Argentina's Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio "cannot be pope," wrote Alex Freyre, because "he lost his papabile status the instant I married @josedibellow. Same for any other Argentine priest."

On Wednesday, Freyre was proven wrong. When the cardinals elected Bergoglio pope, they made history in two ways: They chose the first Latin American pope, but they also chose the first pope from a country where same-sex marriage became legal on his watch.

Although his focus has often been on social justice issues, Bergoglio is a strong defender of the church's position on the marriage issue. His militancy in the campaign against Argentina's "Equal Marriage Law" in 2010 was so tone-deaf that many observers credit him with helping the law pass. But the mistakes his church made in combatting the law—and the tack it has taken since—may suggest the new Pope Francis will be savvier about guiding the church in opposing marriage in countries headed in that direction.

Bergoglio was Argentina's top bishop during the fight over the marriage law. One of the major turning points in the debate came when a letter he'd written to a group of nuns explaining opposition to the law was made public. The rhetoric seemed so out of touch with Argentina's largely secular population that it marginalized the church even further in the debate.

The law was "sent by the Devil," Bergoglio wrote in July of 2010:

Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just it's form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God… Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment… May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.

To this day, the embarrassment the letter caused is evident.

"Bergoglio's letter is nonexistent. It was a private letter" said Father Alberto Bochatey, head of the Catholic University of Argentina's Marriage and Family Institute, when this reporter met with him in Buenos Aires last fall. But, he said, "It surely had a cost."

Around the same time as Bergoglio's letter reached the press, groups of priests from the cities of Quilmes and Córdoba publically denounced the church's position—one priest, Nicolas Alesio, wound up being defrocked for endorsing the marriage law.

When it became clear that stopping the marriage law would be impossible, the church may have tacitly given its backing to a civil union law as a way to head off the marriage bill. Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, a member of Opus Dei and one of the politicians most closely linked to the Catholic Church, sponsored the civil union bill. (This would be like Rick Santorum having endorsed a civil union law in the United States.) It went nowhere. During the debate, the leader of the majority party reduced her to tears while calling her a "Nazi" for backing legislation that would create a "separate-but-equal" status for same-sex couples.

After that, the church noticeably moderated its tone when fighting social issues. During a debate over changes to the civil code in 2012, which included sensitive reproduction issues like surrogacy and the handling of fertilized eggs, the church tread far more lightly — making their case but avoiding the strong language that cost them support in 2010.

"Today they come with a stance that is much more receptive to another point of view," said the chairman of the committee leading the civil code reforms back in August 2012.

How much this experience has moderated Bergoglio himself remains to be seen. He was replaced as the leader of the Argentine church by Archbishop José María Arancedo, who is known for having a far less belligerent manner than Bergoglio. (He also tries to avoid the controversial issue. When this reporter met him for a scheduled audience to talking about the marriage law this fall, he fled his office when he understood what was to be discussed.)

But Bergoglio understands far better than his predecessor the challenges of opposing the tide in favor of same-sex marriage in countries where the church is embattled on many fronts. Even though 76 percent of Argentines identify as Roman Catholic, just 38.2 percent of Argentines went at least once a month in 2005, the most recent data available from the Association of Religious Data Archives.

If the position of the church itself does not change, Bergoglio — now Pope Francis — may nonetheless have a more grounded sense of how to lead an institution in countries where its policy positions are dividing it from the people it hopes to reach.

Is Matt Damon's mild-mannered best friend actually a covert government operative?

Image by Cliff Owen, File / AP

WASHINGTON — Iranian state news agency Press TV published a conspiracy theory by a 9/11 truther on Wednesday positing that Ben Affleck is a covert government operative and could be hanged for war crimes because of his movie Argo, which recently won Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

It's the latest in a mounting, if not very threatening, campaign against the filmmakers of Argo for producing a movie that the Iranian government sees as a biased, stereotypical portrayal of Iranians.

Writing in Press TV, 9/11 truther and former professor Kevin Barrett quotes a "U.S. Intelligence Expert" who "believes that Argo is the propaganda project of an intelligence agency or agencies, and that its purpose is to convince the American people to go along with Israel's plan to drag America into a war on Iran." The intelligence expert in question is Barbara Honneger, a former Reagan administration official who published a book about the "October surprise" conspiracy theory about an alleged plot by the government to delay the release of the Americans trapped in the Iranian hostage crisis.

"Will Ben Affleck, and other covert operators working to launch a criminal war of aggression against Iran, ever be brought to justice?" Barrett writes. "Iran's lawsuit against the makers of Argo is a good place to start."

Earlier, Iran announced via Press TV that it was planning on suing the people behind Argo. It has hired controversial French lawyer Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, who is married to Venezualan terrorist "Carlos the Jackal," currently serving a life sentence in French prison. For a time, Coutant-Peyre represented Zacarias Moussaoui. Per PressTV:

Iran cultural officials talked to an internationally-renowned French lawyer Isabelle Coutant-Peyre over filing a lawsuit against Hollywood during a meeting held in Tehran's Palestine cinema on March 11.

The meeting was held alongside a conference titled "The Hoax of Hollywood" organized by the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.

"The conference was held to unify all cultural communities in Iran against the attacks of the west, particularly Hollywood," said the conference secretary general Mohammad Lesani.

The Argo side of the spat doesn't appear to be taking the suit very seriously. Affleck's lawyer declined to comment on it, as did Warner Brothers, the studio that distributed Argo.

Iran would have to prove that the movie was defamatory, a difficult task in a country where the onus is on the accuser to give proof of libel and in a situation where the movie was not marketed as a documentary but as a fictionalized account of real events.

This scientific quiz is the only way to be sure. Just in time for CPAC!

Fears that the group will back a grand bargain and spark a dark money “arms race.”

U.S. President Barack Obama smiles after meeting with the House Republican Conference members on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 13, 2013. Obama addressed House members about trying to find solutions to the government's fiscal cutbacks, gun control and immigration.

Image by Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Wednesday, President Obama will address a Washington gathering of high-dollar donors to Organizing For Action, the group formed from the remnants of Obama's 2012 campaign. Outside the event, in the city and across the country, progressives will be keeping a wary eye on the proceedings.

For now, the organized left is optimistic. In theory, OFA can bring immense resources to bear on issues like immigration and gun control, putting wind in the sails of the smaller progressive groups already fighting for reform. But there's another side to that coin, progressive activists worry — should Obama support a budget package that includes, say, cuts to entitlements, the left may find itself battling OFA as it pushes Obama's agenda.

"I'm quite excited about the debut of Organizing For [Action]," Becky Bond, political director at CREDO, a grassroots progressive group that has staged protests at Obama events in the past. She said OFA could be a "gamechanger" on gun control, and praised the group's executive director, Jon Carson.

But behind her optimism about OFA was a wariness about what the group will do in sticky situations.

"If what [OFA] does is empower all the people that worked for, volunteered for, and voted for President Obama to have a say in policy fights then I think that's a really great thing. Because they wanted people in power who weren't going to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits," she said. "What does OFA do if the president sends a budget compromise to Congress that includes cuts to Social Security benefits through mechanism of chained CPI, which will limit Social Security benefits in the future? I think that's going to be a real test."

There are other potential legacies for OFA leaving a bad taste in progressive mouths. One liberal operative based outside the beltway complained that by taking unlimited donations — albeit with self-imposed corporate donation restrictions and donor disclosure rules — OFA was making it open season for politicians of all stripes to set up massive dark money machines to support their agendas.

"They're setting a precedent that the GOP will follow. There's nothing to stop [Speaker] Boehner from starting a C-4," the operative said. "It's the next step in an arms race and the potential for corruption is really problematic."

Other progressives have worried that Obama's speech to a group of high-dollar OFA donors signals that the group will offer access to the president for money. On Wednesday, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center released a letter comparing Obama's OFA speech to "Nixon selling ambassador posts, Clinton selling a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, or Bush selling black-tie dinners at the White House."

But that pay-for-access worry only works if OFA can find donors willing to pony up the cash. One California-based prominent Democratic donor was dubious that OFA would find many of the reported $500,000 top-end donors the group looking for.

"Absent the urgency of an election, that's hard," the donor said. But he was optimistic about OFA and its potential.

"There aren't a lot of six-figure donors with immigration as a top priority," he said, citing one example. OFA can help bring those big donors to bear on issues that don't always get lavished with money, he said.

For their part, OFA and the White House have repeatedly denied there's a pay-for-access scheme at OFA. "There's going to be no opportunity to lobby the president through this organization," OFA adviser Ben LaBolt told CNN.

There's also a worry that OFA will strip mine the volunteer base, leaving progressives without their most precious resource. One DC-based progressive organizer said fears that OFA will hog all the volunteers other groups might try to recruit is floating around on the left.

"That's where the biggest chance at friction lies," he said. "People worried that volunteers will get sucked up by OFA."

But the operative said OFA could also keep people engaged who otherwise wouldn't be involved after the 2012 election on the political stage.

"On the flipside, the thing most folks recognize is that there is a core of Obama loyalists who wouldn't be active without OFA, who will stay engaged because of it," he said.

In the end, the D.C.-based progressive predicted, OFA may become a surrogate punching bag for liberals upset with something Obama does.

"I don't think OFA will publicly go against the left. But the left will probably publicly go against OFA as an extension of the President and White House," he said.

In a radio interview, the Fox News host questions the House speaker's commitment. “But do you want to risk the full faith and credit of the United States government over ObamaCare?” Boehner shoots back.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — In a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner found himself on the receiving end of criticism from the Fox News host and conservative personality about the Affordable Care Act not yet having been defunded.

Some conservative Republicans and outside groups have urged Boehner and other House leaders to cut funding to the act as part of a continuing resolution to fund the government, or during the next debt limit fight — and Hannity echoed that trope.

"At some point...are Republicans just doing this symbolically?" Hannity asked. He added, "If we're going to stop this monstrosity, it would take very bold action by the House. Is that something that you're prepared to do?"

"Sean, we're the minority party in Washington, D.C.," Boehner responded. "You've got a Democrat president, you've got a Democrat Senate. It's very difficult for us to impose our will on them."

"I'm giving you a lot of credit," Hannity countered. "I don't want you to be defensive here."

Boehner has needed to play defense on this issue to some extent within his own conference, which includes members for whom cutting funding to the Affordable Care Act is such a priority that they would accept extraordinary measures to accomplish that goal, such as shutting down the government or refusing to increase the debt limit.

In their discussion, Hannity pressed Boehner on those options, but the speaker said he would support neither.

"There will be opportunities ahead," Boehner said. "But do you want to risk the full faith and credit of the United States government over ObamaCare? That's a very tough argument to make."

After the tense exchange, Boehner ended the interview on a friendly note. "Sean, it's always good to be with you, sweetheart."

The MSNBC host is leaving his 8pm time slot and going to the weekends.

Previously, Schultz attacked a NY Times report he was out at 8pm.

“There’s no surprise that the American people are war weary when their commander in chief is the weariest of all,” Rep. Cotton tells CPAC.

Image by Danny Johnston / AP

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Rep. Tom Cotton rallied conservatives to the war effort Thursday, arguing that the U.S. must continue its war against "radical Islamic Jihad."

Speaking at the annual CPAC gathering of conservatives, Cotton, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan bluntly argued that, "It's a war against radical Islamic jihad. It's not a war against terror. Terror is a specific tactic… This is a war we have to engage in and that we have to win."

Cotton also leveled harsh criticism against the Obama administration, questioning the administration's commitment to fighting radicalism.

"We are fighting a war. We are not engaged in a law enforcement campaign. I wonder, I worry that the president thinks we are… The president, I worry, is returning us to a law enforcement construct."

Public support for the war efforts has been declining for years. Even amongst conservatives, who were initially President George Bush's biggest supporters in his campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, a decade of war has eroded support.

Cotton blamed Obama for much of the nation's lack of support for continued war. "I understand that there's war weary… there's no surprise that the American people are war weary when their commander-in-chief is the weariest of all," he said.

Not all conservatives were buying it, however. "This fantasy that we're going to get into a war, we're going to win it like World War II is an aberration," said Dr. Ivan Eland, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute.

“Why lose 10 years of elections to mess with those programs?” the pundit says of changes to Medicare.

Image by Win McNamee / Getty Images

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Republican strategist and pundit Dick Morris dismissed Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's new budget Thursday, charging changes to Medicare in the plan will result in a decade of GOP electoral losses.

"I think he makes one fundamental mistake. Only about 5 to 7 percent of the cuts come from the Medicaid program" and instead focuses on Medicare, which is extremely popular with seniors, Morris said during a speech at the annual CPAC convention here.

"Why lose 10 years of elections to mess with those programs. So what if we don't get to zero?" he said of the budget, insisting the party will sacrifice its electoral success to produce a budget that quickly balances the nation's books.

"Lets get away from the hypnotic phrase balanced budget and stop being accountants," Morris added.

Morris also urged the party lost the 2012 election "because of demographic mathematics," pointing to massive deficits in support amongst gay, black, latino and single white female voters.

"Add 'em up and before the first vote was counted we'd lost 40 to 11… It's this kind of identity politics that has cemented the Obama coalition," Morris said.

To begin undoing that deficit, Morris argued the party should shift its stances on two key issues: immigration reform and abortion.

On immigration, Morris said "we need to pass immigration reform right now," warning that "the problem is [latino voters] don't consider the Republican Party because they think we're racist … once you over come that kind of thinking there is a tremendous basis of support" for Republicans.

On abortion, Morris also called for a shift, saying that while Republicans should not abandon their pro-life positions, they need to come to terms with the fact that "we're never going to win" court fights.

Rather, Republicans need to move "from the courts to the realm of practical reality… lets instead focus on reducing the number of abortions" through contraception, parental notification laws and adoption, Morris said.

Recent programming changes have given the network a chance to play “moneyball” with its deep bench of contributors.

MSNBC's announcement Thursday that rising star Chris Hayes is moving to a weekday prime-time slot leaves a gaping whole in the liberal network's weekend programming — and a big opportunity for the channel's deep bench of contributors who are doing their best to navigate MSNBC's farm system into their own time slots.

Along with the 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. weekend slot vacated by Hayes, there's a lot of space to fill between the end of MPH at noon and the start of Schultz's new show at 5 p.m. And if MSNBC is willing to break out of its current weekend formula — smart morning shows followed by tabloidy documentaries and Meet the Press reruns — it could give its roster of contributors and regular guest hosts a chance to prove they belong in the bigs.

Here are a few of the network's burgeoning stars who should get a chance to become the next Chris Hayes.

Ezra Klein

At just 28 years old, Ezra Klein has filled in for every one of MSNBC's prime-time hosts and has a knack for pulling off unconventional segments, like explaining the European financial crisis to cable news viewers in less than two minutes. Klein's relationship with conservatives on Twitter means those refreshing panels of right-leaning guests on Up will live on, should the network decide to install him in the weekend time slot that was once occupied by Hayes.

View Entire List ›

Florida Republican stuck to climate change and marriage equality. “Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot,” he said to applause.

Image by Alex Wong / Getty Images

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Sen. Marco Rubio steered well clear of immigration reform in his speech to a gathering of conservative activists at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, opting to stick to bread-and-butter attacks on climate change and marriage equality.

Rubio's decision to not mention immigration reform is particularly remarkable given the fact that it has become a central part of his work in the Senate.

But the 2016 presidential aspirant clearly knew his audience: Activists at the CPAC conference are generally skeptical of the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that Rubio is working on with a bipartisan group of senators.

Instead, Rubio stuck to crowd-pleasing attacks on liberals and a full-throated defense of conservatives.

"Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot," Rubio said to applause, adding, "the people who are actually close-minded in our society are the ones who love to preach about climate science and refuse to believe the science that life begins at conception."

View Video ›

While Rubio sticks to a traditional approach, Paul's libertarian, reformist message gets the crowd going.

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Two of the GOP's rising young stars went head-to-head Thursday afternoon at the nation's largest gathering of conservatives in what could end up being an early test of Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul's presidential campaign prowess.

Rubio and Paul, lawmakers who have made no secret of the fact that they are eyeing a presidential bid, could not have had more different approaches to their speeches at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Rubio came to the stage to the dulcet sounds of One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful." Paul, on the other hand, came on to Metallica's thundering "Enter Sandman."

While Rubio purposefully avoided any mention of his signature issue — comprehensive immigration reform — Paul opened his speech with a direct reference to his 13-hour filibuster from last week.

On a more fundamental level, Rubio clearly was positioning himself as a young traditionalist.

Rubio argued that when average middle-class voters look at American politics, "they wonder, who's fighting for them … that is both our challenge and our opportunity: to be their voice."

While he did not talk about immigration, Rubio did hit several specific policy positions, particularly education. "Every parent in America should have the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice," Rubio said, adding that, as a nation, "we should encourage career education … we still need plumbers, we still need carpenters."

Rubio also hued old-school in his attacks, throwing harsh punches at liberals over gay marriage, abortion, and climate change.

"Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot," Rubio said to applause. "The people who are actually close-minded in our society are the ones who love to preach about climate science and refuse to believe the science that life begins at conception."

Paul, on the other hand, has fully embraced the role of the young reformer, giving a wide-ranging speech on topics like drones, marijuana decriminalization, and the need for the GOP to change that noticeably wowed the crowd.

Paul was clearly riding the wave of support he's seen from last week's 13-hour filibuster. "I have a message for the president, a message that is loud and clear, a message that doesn't mince words. The message for the president is that no one person gets to decide the law, no one person gets to decide your guilt or innocence," Paul said at the top of his speech.

Paul also took a shot at critics of his drone filibuster. "To those who would dismiss this debate as frivolous, I say, tell that to the heroic young men and women who have sacrificed their limbs and lives; tell it to the 6,000 parents whose kids died as American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; tell them that the Bill of Rights is no big deal," Paul said to applause.

Paul also took up the call for the GOP to transform itself in order to win over what he dubbed the "Facebook generation."

"The Republican Party has to change — by going forward to the classical and timeless ideas enshrined in our Constitution. When we understand that that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then we will become the dominant national party again," Paul said.

"We need a Republican Party that shows up on the Southside of Chicago and shouts at the top of our lungs, 'We are the party of jobs and opportunity.' The GOP is the ticket to the middle class," he added before taking a direct shot at the traditionalists in the party.

"The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered — I don't think we need to name any names here, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP, the GOP that will win again, will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere."

The gay conservative is considering taking on the senior South Carolina senator in 2014. He also is taking on gay progressives — and defending DOMA.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Confrontational gay blogger Bruce Carroll will decide over the next six weeks whether he will become one of the first out Republicans to run for statewide office in the South, he said Thursday.

The bombastic blogger known as "Gay Patriot," who is weighing a challenge to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in 2014, likely would run without the support of large segments of the LGBT community that has helped fund many out candidates' runs for office. And in the age of the blogger-politician, he may also have to account for some of his own words, on his blog and on Twitter.

"Personally, I think the gay progressives have wasted a lot of time and resources trying to die on the cross of the word 'marriage.' I think civil unions, potentially, could have been passed at the federal level, maybe even 10 years ago," Carroll told BuzzFeed in a cafe at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center on Thursday, the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Before Carroll even gets to dealing with the substance of gay issues, however, he will first have to fact the question of whether a gay Republican could launch a realistic run for statewide office in South Carolina.

"The message that I've gotten from people involved in South Carolina politics is: Maybe this is the time, and maybe there are layers and layers of reasons why people might just not care," Carroll said. "I think I represent a consistent conservative voter in South Carolina, maybe on more issues than people know, in fact, based on what they know of me based on my social media profile. [Graham] needs to be held to account by his peers and his voters, and I think that I can do that effectively — and if I didn't think I could do that effectively, I wouldn't run."

Although earlier this week he said he would be making that decision by the end of the summer — hence, leading him to resign from the board of GOProud, which he co-founded — on Thursday he said the decision will come much more quickly.

"The equation for me is: Can I take a year out of my life dedicated to meeting all the residents of South Carolina, introducing myself to them and pointing out why I'm an alternative to the incumbent senator, and realistically, can I raise the kind of money that it would take to challenge him next year," he said. "It's unreasonable to think that you can do that campaign without starting very soon, so I expect a yes or no decision no later than mid-April — so about six weeks."

And, he will have to deal with his words. In the past month, for example, Carroll has tweeted up a storm. "I'd cut off your dole from Obama," he tweeted to Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law student who became a Democratic mainstay for her defense of contraceptive and reproductive rights. "Obama can relate to drug dealers since he was one," Carroll tweeted regarding a story about the president's pardons. Regarding an "off-leash" plan for dogs on Boston Common, Carroll added, "Barney Frank will still be leashed."

Although not addressing those tweets specifically, Carroll acknowledged in general that he does get out of hand at times.

"Now that I think about it, there are words that I shouldn't have used, that I wouldn't use as an official Senate candidate, and I don't use them a lot, but everyone zeroes in on the one thing that they find. And, they'll probably find that," he said. "I can't do that as a Senate candidate, but I don't think I should sap my personality for the sake of running for public office because that's an appeal. I can't hide my personality. I can refine my delivery a little bit, and I have the ability to do that, but I am who I am."

A gay candidate running in the South as the Supreme Court hears cases dealing with gay couples' marriage rights will have to explain his views on the issue. Rather than taking a position like conservative lawyer Ted Olson has taken in challenging California's Proposition 8, Carroll takes a more socially conservative view.

"I have been uncomfortable with the attempts to redefine marriage, and here's why: I think a church or religious institution should have the freedom or liberty to have the ceremonies they want in their own church or denomination." He did say, however, that some states have done a good job at trying to address that concern, noting, "I think the New Hampshire law is very good in its religious liberty protections. I would favor civil unions with very strong religious protections language."

Where does that leave Carroll on New Hampshire's marriage equality law?

"If my only choice, as a voter, was to vote for marriage with strong religious liberty protections, I would do that, too. My preference would be civil unions over redefining marriage, but I would vote for marriage with very strong religious liberty protections. I think it's a states' issue; I fundamentally think the voters should have a say in the matter, whether it's a direct vote or through their legislature; and I'm uncomfortable with courts mandating this because it is such an important issue — not only for gays, but for religious liberty reasons."

Carroll points to the Boy Scouts as an example he's seen of why he is concerned about churches' religious liberty being infringed. "The Boy Scouts are a private institution, and they've been forced to re-examine their position on including gays in the Boy Scouts through what I think is a very hard-handed manner over the past 10 years. I just don't want churches to go through the same thing the Boy Scouts have had to go through," he said.

As for what that means for the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of 'marriage,' which is being challenged in a case to be heard by the Supreme Court later this month, Carroll said, "I still fundamentally believe the word 'marriage' is a religious term used by a church of a covenant between a man, a woman and God, so I actually support DOMA as it is on the books because I think it helps move the topic now more cohesively to the states and allow the states to do flexibility."

Asked if that meant he supports a married same-sex couple in New Hampshire being treated differently than a married opposite-sex couple, he paused and said: "As you can tell, I'm struggling with this. I have my beliefs, I have my principles on the issue. I don't agree with the gay community on marriage. It's a tough call, but I would say right now that there are just so many layers of this that I think DOMA is practical in the type of environment we're in. In five years from now, I might have a different perspective. But, as we're here today, I think it's practical to keep DOMA in place while other things are playing out in the states."

There's more to this than the tours, White House says.

Image by Mike Blake / Reuters

WASHINGTON -- Ever since the Obama administration announced an end to White House tours, mocking and attacking the move has become de rigueur for many Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Editorial writers and cable news hosts have also been on President Obama's case over the tours, casting the closing of the White House's doors as the symbol of a president they say is doing everything he can to gin up some camera-friendly sequester tragedy.

But the reality is the sequester is having real impacts in the states — and the White House is hoping to turn the tables on Republicans, many of whom have begun lamenting those impacts back home.

On Thursday, Press Secretary Jay Carney name-checked a few Republicans from the podium as he read local stories from across the country about the sequester's impact.

"In upstate New York, I know there's concern because an airport control tower is being shut down because of the need to reduce spending by the FAA," Carney said before reading a quote bemoaning the move by Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY). He read a similar quote from Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) about potential civilian furloughs at military installations in Corpus Christi.

"They're right," Carney said. "There are real impacts out there."

Other Republicans leading the criticism against the White House tour closure are also facing sequester impacts back home. Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), for example, reportedly called on Obama to cancel events where he hosts members of Congress at the White House (like the annual Christmas party) rather than close down the tours during Obama's meeting with the House GOP caucus on Capitol Hill Thursday.

Miller represents The Thumb region of Michigan on the eastern end of the state's Lower Peninsula. Veterans in neighboring regions are fretting over a loss in tuition aide, as this Flint-area TV report explains.

Despite the growing stories of the sequester's local impact, it seems likely that, for now, the shut down of the White House tours will become the early symbol of the sequester. But the White House and its allies hope that the more the public finds out about what sequestration means to their home town, the more pressure they'll put on the GOP in Congress to make a deal with Obama and put an end to it.

48 newspapers from around the world welcomed the Catholic Church's new leader.

United States

Source: webmedia.newseum.org

Argentina

Source: webmedia.newseum.org

Austria

Source: webmedia.newseum.org

Bahrain

Source: webmedia.newseum.org

View Entire List ›

BOOM!

Conservatives did not appreciate Chris Christie's photo-ops with President Obama right before the 2012 election.

Image by Getty Images

But is was a mistake to leave him off of the Conservative Political Action Conference speakers list.

Image by Reuters

Christie has some undeniable things going for him that many top Republicans do not:

Via: govchristie

Like a sense of humor.

Via: govchristie

View Entire List ›

Fundraising trip to Bay Area to “to help retire the debt of the Democratic National Committee that remains from our victory in November,” California Democratic Party email reads.

Image by Susan Walsh / AP

President Barack Obama will travel to northern California early next month for a pair of pricey fundraisers aimed at retiring the Democratic National Committee's debt, according to an email sent out by Wade Randlett, the chair of the Bay Area Democrats Thursday.

Randlett's email, obtained by BuzzFeed:

From: Wade Randlett
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM
Subject: President Obama back in the Bay Area April 4!
To:

Dear ,

Just wanted to give you a quick heads up that Barack will be back for his first visit of his 2nd term on Thursday, April 4, to help retire the debt of the Democratic National Committee that remains from our victory in November.

While the exact details are still being finalized, there will be two events in Silicon Valley, with locations TBD and the following price points.

Event # 1:

What: Brunch
When: Thursday, April 4th 2013 - 9am call time
Price Structure: $32,400 per person limited to 30 people

Event#2:

What: Lunch
When: Thursday, April 4th 2013 – 10:30am call time
Price Structure:
$1,000 general admission
$5,000 photo reception and lunch for one guest
$7,500 photo reception and lunch for two guests
$20,000 co-chair clutch reception for one guest

We will get you full details as soon as they are available, but if you suspect that you will be interested in participating at any of these levels, please send a quick reply email now so that we can be as organized as possible.

Thanks again for all your hard work and generosity that made the 2nd term a possibility.

Best,
/w

-------------------------------
Wade Randlett

Update: A White House official confirmed the Obama trip to California. "On April 3-4, the President will travel to northern California for fundraising events for the DCCC and DNC," the official said. "More details on the President's travel will be released as they become available."

He's not a lot of things, take his word for it.

Charlie Brown

The President said “I'm not Charlie Brown with a football,” while on Capitol Hill today meeting with Democrats and Republicans according to Politico.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Dick Cheney

Obama reportedly told Senate Democrats concerned with the drone program that he wasn't Dick Cheney — at least according to a Politico titled "President Obama: I'm no Dick Cheney on drones."

Image by Jason Reed / Reuters

A dictator

During a sequester press conference, Obama said, "I am not a dictator. I’m the President. So, ultimately, if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, we need to go to catch a plane, I can't have Secret Service block the doorway, right?"

The president was responding to a question about having Congressional leaders come to the White House to work out a deal on the mandatory federal budget cuts.

Image by Jason Reed / Reuters

A judge

During a press conference about the sequester, Obama, responding to a question about how the administration had asked the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage, said, "I’m not a judge, I’m the president."

Image by Win McNamee / Getty Images

View Entire List ›

Some want more restrictions, some want fewer — but almost no one is satisfied. “It is a nonsensical policy,” Rep. Markey says.

Image by Elaine Thompson, File / AP

WASHINGTON — Bipartisanship may be a dead art most days on Capitol Hill, but there's at least one thing everyone agrees on — Transportation Security Administration's recent decision to allow some small knives on airplanes is a terrible decision.

Their reasons for hating the decision vary — some think it's not far enough, others think TSA has gone too far — but everyone is united in their dislike of the new rule.

"It is a nonsensical policy, it is a contradictory policy, it is a dangerous policy," Democratic Rep. Ed Markey Thursday during a press event outside the Capitol with a group of flight attendants . "Al Qaeda will simply move to the Swiss Army knife from the box cutter."

The policy has been roundly criticized on the Hill on both sides of the spectrum, from those who would continue the ban on small knives to those who think other banned items, such as shampoo, should be permitted.

Echoing Markey's stance, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg said in a statement, "The new TSA policy to allow additional weapons on airplanes could further exacerbate ongoing security problems at airports in New Jersey and across the country rather than reduce them."

But other lawmakers balked at the notion that small knives, with blades no longer than roughly two inches, would be allowed on planes before liquids, and while infants and the elderly are still searched extensively by TSA.

"To me, I think it's still disproportionate," said Republican Rep. John Fleming. "If you're going to allow knives on board, I think that there's a lot of other things you should have relaxed first before you allow knives."

"I think they go overboard with testing fluids," Fleming added. "I have a grandson with cystic fibrosis, and he had fluids in the baggage that they were bringing on board, and they went through all their stuff, ...and that's totally overboard."