The media puts a powerful gun lobby on the ropes for a weekend.

The National Rifle Association absorbed some predictable jabs from liberal pundit Paul Krugman on ABC while their defiant leader Wayne LaPierre seemed dazed by the uppercut delivered by Chris Wallace on Fox News.

Paul Krugman takes on ABC panel after he calls the NRA, "an insane organization."

View Video ›

"What strikes me is we've actually gotten a glimpse into the mindset, though, of the pro-gun people and we've seen certainly Wayne LaPierre and some of these others. It's bizarre ... They have this vision that we're living in a Mad Max movie and that nothing can be done about it. That America cannot manage unless everybody's prepared to shoot intruders, that the idea that we have police forces that provide public safety is somehow totally impractical, despite the fact that, you know, that is, in fact, the way we live."

And Fox News's Chris Wallace took issue LaPierre's NRA ad featuring the First Daughters.

View Video ›

"You really think that the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in America?" That's ridiculous and you know it, sir."

Watch the full Fox News Sunday episode here and watch the full This Week episode here.

A Twitter typo or a veiled message?

Via: @repweiner

The former great libertarian hope has started running his own Twitter feed since he left office.

Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been attracting negative attention all day for a tweet he sent Monday morning regarding the death of former Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle at the hands of an Iraq War veteran. But get used to off-the-cuff Twitter activity from the former presidential candidate: Paul, 77, is now running his own Twitter feed, a spokesperson says.

"He runs it," said Campaign for Liberty communications director Megan Stiles, who is handling Paul's press requests since he retired. She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."

"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense," Paul tweeted on Monday. Kyle was shot and killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a veteran of the Iraq War who had post-traumatic stress disorder, at a shooting range in Texas.

The tweet outraged people on Twitter, particularly conservatives. Commentary editor John Podhoretz called it "appalling"; "you really are vile," tweeted Republican strategist Rick Wilson.

Paul's tweet seemed to prompt the return of the Ron Paul Newsletters Twitter feed, which was active during his presidential campaign and tweets quotes from the controversial newsletters published under his name in past decades that frequently included racist or homophobic passages (Paul and his aides have maintained that he wasn't the author of the newsletters). It had been laying dormant since March.

UPDATE: Paul posted this statement on his Facebook page on Monday evening:

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle's family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

It's simple, but not easy: Reduce poverty.

Source: Design by Chris Ritter for BuzzFeed  /  via: martinprosperity.org

Washington is debating restricting guns or improving mental health care to reduce the number of shootings in America, but the clearest predictor of gun violence has gotten less attention: poverty.

State-level data surveys show poverty as a bigger risk factor for gun violence than a citizenry with unrestricted access to guns. And while new gun laws might make it harder for those with criminal intent to get their hands on deadly weapons, alleviating poverty could stop criminal behavior before it starts.

In a 2011 state-by-state analysis by researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute, poverty was more highly correlated with gun deaths than almost any other state characteristic, including the percentage of students who carry weapons to school. The association was stronger than that between assault weapons bans and lower gun deaths.

Common recommendations for curbing gun violence, meanwhile, have key limitations. More intensive interventions for mental illness might not have much effect on the overall gun violence rate, given that severely mentally ill people are involved in only about 4% of violent crime. And while assault weapons bans are associated with fewer gun deaths at the state level, the majority of murders aren't committed with assault weapons.

Chicago

Conservatives like to point to Chicago — with a brutal epidemic of homicides despite tight gun laws — to show gun control can't work. Others argue those laws don't carry stiff enough penalties.

But in fact Chicago offers one of the clearest connections between poverty and gun violence. Last year, Chicago Reader reporter Steve Bogira compared homicide rates in the city's five poorest neighborhoods with those in its five least poor.

His finding: The average rate of gun deaths in Chicago's five poorest neighborhoods was over 12 times the rate in its least poverty-stricken.

There's even compelling evidence that growing up poor makes an individual person more likely to commit violence. A team led by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine followed boys randomly selected from Pittsburgh public schools from 1987 to 2003 and tracked whether the boys committed violent crimes. They developed an 11-factor model for predicting whether a given boy would become violent. Some of the factors were related to the boys' psychological and emotional development, things like depression and a history of callous or unemotional behavior. But three factors related directly to poverty: low socioeconomic status, being on welfare, and living in what their parents reported was a "bad neighborhood." Another, high parental stress, may be indirectly related, since poverty has been shown to increase stress.

The model was effective at predicting violence — boys with four or more of the risk factors were six times as likely to become violent as boys with fewer than four. The team also created a separate but similar model specifically for predicting homicide. It was even stronger than the violence prediction model — boys who had four or more homicide risk factors were 14 times as likely to commit homicide as boys with less than four.

"The implication," the authors explain, "is that violence-producing processes more often accumulate over many years rather than suddenly emerging." Poverty appears to be one such process — reducing it might keep kids from seeking out guns in the first place.

We're also at a point in history where a disturbingly high percentage of children are living in poverty — 21.9% in 2011. If we want to keep them from growing up to kill or be killed, their economic well-being may be the most powerful place to start.

View Entire List ›

In a speech in Minneapolis, the president lowers expectations for an assault weapons ban. “We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something.”

President Barack Obama visits Minneapolis, Minnesota, to rally support from the public and law enforcement community for his calls to ban assault weapons and install universal background checks for gun buyers, Monday, February 4, 2013.

Image by Glen Stubbe/Minneapolis Star Tribune/MCT

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama appeared to bow to broad opposition to instituting a new Assault Weapons Ban Monday in a speech on his gun control plans in Minneapolis.

Addressing a law-enforcement-heavy crowd, Obama expressed optimism that a compromise can be reached to mandate universal background checks for gun sales, but tempered expectations for a new ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, saying he just wants to see them come up for a vote.

"We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something," Obama said less than a month after he and Vice President Joe Biden announced their plans to address gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school shooting.

"We are starting to see a consensus emerge about the action Congress needs to take," Obama said. "The vast majority of Americans — including a majority of gun owners — support requiring criminal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun...There is no reason we can't get that done."

But for the assault weapons ban, public opinion is much more divided.

"We shouldn't stop there," Obama said, far less hopefully. "We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines — and that deserves a vote in Congress because weapons of war have no place on our streets or in our schools or threatening our law enforcement officers."

Republicans — and even some Democrats — have expressed opposition to the proposed ban, which is seen unlikely to pass Congress.

"If there is even one thing we can do – if there is even one life we can save – we've got an obligation to try," Obama said, repeating his mantra on gun control since the Newtown shooting.

Desert Gardens, Scented Candles and Unusual Histories. (UPDATED with herding cats cartoon)

Nice view, Mr. Speaker. All the photos below are taken from this image, dated last August.

Via: speakerboehner

Illegitimi Non Carborundum Plaque

The latin aphorism means "don't let the bastards grind you down." While the language is ancient, the phrase is not. It originated during World War II.

A Supply of Tissues (One in Use)

For drying the Speaker's often copious tears.

Over-the-Rhine: When Beer Was King

This is a short history of a beer-making German-American neighborhood in Cincinnati that's just outside Boehner's district (which mostly lies west of Cincinnatti).

It's actually a more controversial reading choice than you might think; as one Amazon reviewer describes the central narrative: "There were nativist forces at work to undermine German society and its beer-soaked culture. Morgan writes, 'Before gay marriage, abortion rights, civil rights or the Vietnam War, beer became the focal point of a much broader social debate.' That was temperance, the social reform movement that gave us Prohibition."

View Entire List ›

Oops. Seems to be a mistake by his spokesman.

Via: politwoops.sunlightfoundation.com

h/t Lauren Bassett.

Beck mocks President Obama's Super Bowl Sunday interview with CBS's Scott Pelley about the dangers of football.

"His man card has been revoked by me! When i'm saying you're a girl, you are absolutely 100% girl power."

View Video ›

View Entire List ›

Jackson was being investigated for misusing campaign funds. Ironic.

Image by Associated Press / AP

Only three of the 22 candidates running to replace former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. — who resigned following a criminal investigation into his alleged misuse of campaign funds — have filed their financial disclosure forms to the House Ethics Committee.

The House of Representatives ethics manual states "an individual who qualifies as a candidate for the House must file within 30 days before any election (including a primary) in which that individual is seeking office." The manual adds, "an individual seeking office qualifies as a candidate for financial disclosure purposes by raising or spending more than $5,000 for his campaign."

The election is scheduled to be held on February 26th, and to meet the 30-day requirement filings would have had to be placed by January 27th.

Since the passing of the DISCLOSE Act, all filings can now be accessed online via the House of Representatives clerk's office. But as of Monday, only three candidates, Deborah Halvorson, Robin Kelly, and Beverly Reid, had filed.

Toi Hutchinson, who missed the deadline to file has reported a total of $135,000 in receipts and $129,637 cash on hand, filed a request for an extension.

Anthony Beale, who didn't file his disclosure, recently reported just shy of $50,000 in receipts to the FEC, though that came through only $5,000 in contributions. The $44,000 in unitemized contributions means Beale is reporting that almost all his donations came in amounts less than $200.

A staffer for the House Ethics Committee did immediately return a request for comment on the severity of the violation.

“We don't believe anyone should be denied the opportunity to participate in the amazing and important experience that is Scouting,” Sens. Jeff Merkley and Sherrod Brown write.

Image by Tom Pennington / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — As the Boy Scouts of America consider ending the organizational ban on gay scouts and leaders, two senators — both Eagle Scouts — sent a letter to the group's head asking the organization "to adopt inclusive membership and leadership policies that will allow for all Americans to participate in the Boy Scouts."

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon noted the experience and skills they gained through Boy Scouts in the letter, provided to BuzzFeed on Monday evening. The pair told Wayne Brock, the chief scout executive, "We urge you to pursue a path which recognizes that all Americans should be welcomed into the Scouting family, regardless of sexual orientation."

Although both senators have publicly expressed their opposition to the policy in the past, this is the first time either one has approached the Boy Scouts directly urging a change to the policy.

The Scouts' National Executive Board and Committee meetings began Monday, but a decision on the gay ban is not expected until Wednesday.

The senators' letter, dated Feb. 1, comes as President Barack Obama also spoke out in support of the Boy Scouts ending the gay ban on Sunday.

Zach Wahls, Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality, told BuzzFeed Monday night that his organization had met with both senators' offices to discuss the ban in January.

"As they wrote so eloquently in their letter and as the BSA's honorary president, Mr. Obama, said over the weekend, Scouting should be home to all who will abide its code, live its lessons and are willing to blaze a trail. We hope the BSA will heed the advice two of its most distinguished alumni have to offer," Wahls said of Brown and Merkley's letter.

Not a priority for the Democratic Senate, and a nonstarter in the Republican House. Lacking support from Congress, the president will have to go it alone.

Image by Joe Raedle / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — During his inaugural address last month, President Barack Obama vowed firmly and explicitly to make tackling climate change a top priority in his second term.

But if he does, it will likely be without the help of Congress.

Interviews with a range of Congressional sources revealed little appetite on Capitol Hill for serious action on the issue. In the House, many members of the Republican majority don't even agree with scientists on the root causes of climate change. And in the Democrat-controlled Senate, there is scant incentive to act on such a politically dicey issue — particularly when a host of moderate Democrats will face reelection battles during the 2014 cycle.

A bipartisan consensus has emerged that the only progress on climate change in the next two years will come directly from the White House, where Obama will have to act unilaterally via executive orders and the Environmental Protection Agency — circumventing the legislative process entirely.

"The president hasn't ever done anything on this issue for a good reason: Senate Democrats want to deal with it about as much as they want to poke themselves repeatedly in the eye with a No. 2 pencil," one House Republican aide mused.

Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not include climate change legislation among his priority measures for the coming Congress. And a Senate Republican aide confirmed that work is not currently being done on the committee level to address climate change, and that there is a widespread expectation that the president will act alone and on his own terms.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who heads up the House Science Committee, will hold a hearing within the next few weeks "on the current state of the environment," his office said — which will likely include climate change.

Smith's own views on the issue don't imply a sense of urgency.

"I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles and human activity," Smith said in a statement. "But scientists still don't know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing. It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda."

Nor does the speaker intend to move swiftly on the issue, if at all.

"We will be happy to take a look at any proposal the president puts forward — but a national energy tax that raises costs, increases our dependence on foreign oil and destroys American jobs seems like the last thing we need right now," said Michael Steel, a spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner.

Recent efforts to enact climate change legislation have been fraught with complications. Democrats in the House ferried a cap-and-trade bill to passage in 2009, but a similar measure later stalled in the Senate.

Among the persistent hold-ups: Lawmakers of both parties, but Republicans in particular, are acutely aware of the high political risk associated with taking on climate issues and, by extension, the powerful energy lobby.

During the 2010 midterm cycle, former Republican Rep. Bob Inglis lost a primary battle to Rep. Trey Gowdy in a safely Republican district — in part, Inglis said, because he had publicly urged his Republican colleagues to engage in the climate change debate.

"My most enduring heresy was just saying climate change is real," Inglis told BuzzFeed. "It was seen as a treachery to the tribe."

Now, Inglis, who said he once rejected the notion of climate change as a legitimate crisis, devotes his time to the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, through which he hopes to stake a claim for conservatives on the topic of climate change.

He said he is encouraged by early signs of shifting sentiment within his party — but he worries that, without urgency to tackle the issue among conservative constituents, Republican lawmakers will have little incentive to act.

"Politically, I think it's one of several issues where we're just out of step with where the world is going, and unless we want to be some anachronistic throwback and slump to just the 'Grumpy Old Party,' we really need to get with it," Inglis said. "I think one of those key issues is scientific denial. It's not very becoming. It just makes us look like we're not about the future, we're afraid of the future, we're trying to hold on to what was. That's not just offensive to young people, that's offensive to the DNA of America."

For the time being, Sens. Barbara Boxer and David Vitter, who lead the Senate Environment Committee, are focused on hashing out a Water Resources Development Act — and, the Senate aide said, "I can't imagine (Boxer) would halt that for any kind of global warming stuff."

The issue did receive a small push recently from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Henry Waxman, both Democrats, when they launched a task force and entreated the president to act.

But even if the Senate were to pass a large-scale bill addressing climate change in some manner, the Republican-controlled House would present its own insurmountable legislative obstacle.

As one House GOP aide explained, "House Republican priorities are job creation and dealing with America's out-of-control spending, issues that the American people are concerned about."

Navin Nayak, of the League of Conservation Voters, has been heartened by "small changes" in the tone among lawmakers — but said the shift is coming too slowly for any substantial progress to be made soon.

"The encouraging thing is that there are a lot of Tea Party members who are no longer in office, but it's not happening fast enough for us to be excited," Nayak said. "So many members of Congress continue to rail against the EPA and rail against the science."

Ruby Cramer contributed to this report.

This is the only gif from a throwback MSNBC promo starring Chuck Todd you need.

Source: youtu.be

The governor plays along with the Late Show's tradition of relentless fat jokes about him.

Source: cbs.com  /  via: nowth.is

As top Republican begins rebranding push, Democrats look to keep focus on social issues.

WASHINGTON — House Democrats Tuesday released a new web ad attacking House Majority Leader Eric Cantor over the GOP's resistance to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act last year.

The ad was timed to coincide with a major policy speech Cantor was scheduled to give at the American Enterprise Institute Tuesday afternoon outlining his vision for party's coming legislative agenda.

Although Cantor still backs an emphasis on fiscal issues, his speech is designed to try and steer the party into tackling other "softer" areas that Republicans have a well established positions but haven't focused on in recent years.

Democrats have had success in casting Republicans as being solely focused on cutting spending and implementing conservative priorities, and the Tuesday ad is clearly aimed at blunting Cantor's push to soften the GOP's appearance.

"No matter how much the Tea Party House Republicans try to rebrand their party, the fact remains: They are still the party that is blocking funding to prevent domestic violence," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner. "No sales job can change the truth, that Tea Party House Republicans will relentlessly pursue their War on Women."

Raul Labrador calls the proposal a ploy by unions and the Democratic party.

Image by Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — One of the most prominent Latino Republicans on Capitol Hill called efforts to pass a pathway to citizenship for some 13 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. a cynical ploy by Democrats and unions to swell their ranks.

"Anybody who's clamoring for citizenship is looking for voters, and they're looking for union members. They're not looking to help the people who are here illegally. They're looking for a political solution, they're not looking a policy that actually strengthens the United States," said Rep. Raul Labrador, a fiercely conservative Latino from Idaho.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Labrador claimed that in his 15 years as an immigration attorney, what undocumented workers came in "asking for was 'how do I become legal. I want to become legal.' That was the question every time someone came into my office. They weren't clamoring for citizenship."

Labrador's vocal opposition to a pathway to citizenship — which is part of bipartisan immigration reform plans in both the House and Senate — could complicate efforts to pass legislation this year. With Sen. Marco Rubio quarterbacking the reform process in the Senate, many reform advocates had hoped Labrador would at a minimum temper his opposition to a comprehensive plan that includes a pathway.

But Labrador argued that if Democrats want a victory on policy, they're going to have to accept the fact that Republicans don't have the appetite for a pathway at this point.

"It depends on whether they want to have a policy victory. I think they would support it if we can get enough Republicans to support it as well … We have to figure out what to do about the people who are here, and we need to figure out how to do that fairly," Labrador argued.

The conservative Republican also insisted that focusing solely on what to do about the tens of millions of undocumented persons in the country is taking the focus off the real goal: permanently repairing the immigration system.

"Every one of your questions has been about the 12 million people, what we have is a broken immigration system. I'm more concerned about having a modern immigration system that we can fix so that 10 years from now, 20 years from now we're all sitting here and all of you guys are asking me 'what do we do about the 10 million people who are here.'"

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration, conservative members of the House called a “pathway to citizenship” “extreme” and “toxic.” Julian Castro for the defense.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., gives his opening remarks on Capitol Hill prior to the committee's hearing on immigration.

Image by Susan Walsh / AP

House Republicans split Tuesday from their counterparts in the Senate on the issue of immigration reform, arguing that a plan to give millions of undocumented immigrants citizenship is as "extreme" as "mass deportation."

Although a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators — including Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona — have agreed to include citizenship in their immigration proposal, conservative members present at Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing pushed back repeatedly against the measure, which Republican committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte called "the question of the day."

Speaking directly to Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio and a witness at the hearing, Goodlatte asked, "Are there options that we should consider between the extremes of mass deportation and a pathway to citizenship for those not lawfully present in the United States?"

Castro, a rising star in the Democratic party, said he supported a pathway to citizenship, adding, "I don't see that as an extreme option."

"I would disagree with the characterization of that as extreme," Castro said. "The extreme, I would say, to fill that out, would be open borders. Nobody agrees with open borders. Everyone agrees that we need to secure our border."

Other Republicans joined Goodlatte in arguing — often directly to Castro — for a middle ground between deportation and citizenship. Alabama's Rep. Spencer Bachus referred to full citizenship as a "toxic and contentious issue," while Idaho's Rep. Raúl Labrador asked Castro, "If we can find a solution short of a pathway to citizenship, but that's not kicking 12 million people out, why is that not a solution?"

On a conference call with members of the press during the second half of the hearing, immigration advocacy leaders said Republicans at the hearing were out of step with the American people on the issue of citizenship.

"They were trying to set up a false choice between the extremes of mass deportation and a path to citizenship," said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, a director at the National Council of La Raza. "To try to paint that rigorous path as amnesty is frankly incorrect."

"You can't blame them for trying," she added. "Mischaracterizing a roadmap to citizenship is just another tactic to stall the debate."

During the hearing, Castro, too, framed the pathway to citizenship as a rigorous one. "The compromise is that this is earned citizenship. One would be fined, one would have to learn English, pay back taxes, and go to the back of the line," he said. "This is a years-long process. And it would be earned. That's an important point to make."

Behind the scenes, Republicans search for a compromise. Democratic leaders “pretty confident” the measure will be reauthorized.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — The Violence Against Women Act appears to be on a path to reauthorization in the House — but Democrats are slinging attacks at their Republican counterparts in the meantime.

In an email Tuesday, House Democrats sounded a familiar refrain in the years-long saga: "House GOP Standing in Way of VAWA, Again."

Democrats went on to attack House Republicans for delaying a vote on the measure, which would renew a law meant to curb domestic violence.

Even so, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said Tuesday he is "pretty confident" the measure will be approved by the House this time — although he left an opening for tweaks to the bill.

"The Senate version is the best version," Hoyer said. "I'm not in a position to say, 'My way or the highway,' however."

The Senate's bill extends to a few key groups for which some House Republicans oppose protections: Namely, immigrants, LGBT women, and Native Americans.

Those provisions proved nonstarters in the Republican-controlled House last year, but there are signs that the majority party might reconsider.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Rep. Tom Cole met Tuesday to discuss the latter sticking point in particular, which Cantor opposes and Cole supports.

"Our leadership has moved a long way," Cole told reporters. "I really appreciate some of the efforts they've made, because not everybody is going to be happy, and in the end of the day we ought not to deny Americans the right to protect their own citizens in their communities. ... Tribal governments just don't have the same policing authority and proscecutorial authority that they need, and I hope to correct that in this bill."

Asked whether he thought his Republican colleagues might be able to support protections for Native Americans, Cole responded, "If they got more familiar with it, I hope they would."

"If we don't get in the base language in the bill, …I think we certainly ought to get a shot at getting it in on the floor," he added. "I don't have that agreement yet, but I'm certainly pushing for it."

Whether — and when — an agreement will be reached remains unclear, however.

"We're continuing to work on the best approach to protect women and prosecute offenders," said Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner.

This Senator knows Pitbull's real name.

The debate could jeopardize larger immigration reform package, Rubio says.

Image by Haraz N. Ghanbari, File / AP

WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday he hopes protections for LGBT immigrants does not become "a central issue" in congressional lawmakers' discussion of immigration reform.

"I think if that issue becomes a central issue in the debate it's going to become harder to get it done because there will be strong feelings on both sides," Rubio said during an interview at BuzzFeed Brews.

When President Barack Obama released his own immigration plan, it urged the same immigration laws for same-sex couples as for others.

But Rubio, one of Senate's "Gang of Eight" that recently unveiled a framework for immigration reform, said Tuesday that congressional lawmakers "haven't really discussed the pros and the cons of it" yet.

He added, "I imagine that issue will eventually be confronted."

View Video ›

Says he's “seen reasonable debate” about whether climate change is man-made.

Image by Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday that he is not worried about changing climate in Florida specifically, and declined to identify the causes of climate change in general.

"The climate is always changing," Rubio said vaguely.

Indeed, he tried to cast doubt upon the notion that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

"I've actually seen reasonable debate on that principle," Rubio said.