MIAMI -- Sen. Marco Rubio has close ties to a colleague accused of questionable financial dealings. The freshman senator also once was enmeshed in a controversy over the use of the state party's credit card for his personal expenses. And he has faced increased scrutiny over his personal background since bursting onto the national political scene, including conflicting details of his parents' immigration from Cuba and his recently disclosed ties to the Mormon faith.

Will issues like those in Rubio's personal and political background hold back one of the GOP's fastest-rising stars? That's a question being debated in Republican circles in Washington, Florida and elsewhere as the Cuban-American senator with solid conservative credentials works to raise his profile beyond Florida, if not position himself for a national role within the GOP.

"Marco Rubio is a huge star in the Republican Party in much the same way that Barack Obama was in the Democratic Party between his convention speech in 2004 and his candidacy for the president," said Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "There are a lot of plusses when you look at Marco Rubio as a potential vice presidential candidate, but there are also unknowns."

Rubio, who all but certainly has political aspirations that extend beyond the Senate, frequently is mentioned by Republican insiders as an attractive candidate to be Mitt Romney's running mate partly because the party needs to attract Hispanic voters in battleground states like Nevada and Florida in November.

While Rubio denies any interest in the No. 2 slot on the ticket this year, he's working hard to stay in the national spotlight. He recently gave a major foreign policy address in Washington, he's talking about writing a bill to allow some young illegal immigrants to remain and work in the country without citizenship, and next month he'll release a memoir.

The country is only just starting to get to know Rubio and his political vulnerabilities, though Florida residents know both well.

Rubio's relationship with fellow freshman lawmaker Rep. David Rivera, now facing a federal probe into tax evasion, and the credit card controversy surfaced during his 2010 Senate campaign. And they didn't have much effect. But that doesn't mean the country as a whole would overlook those eyebrow-raising issues.

"Floridians may be numb to these hits because of the rough-and-tumble nature of politics in the state, when it's looked at by a national audience it may not be as palatable," said Abe Dyk, a political strategist who managed the 2010 Senate campaign of Rubio's Democratic challenger.

Rubio and Rivera met in 1992, during the campaign of former Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a fellow South Florida Cuban-American. The two rose through the ranks in the statehouse with Rivera oftentimes playing bad cop to the more congenial Rubio.

During the legislative session, they shared a Tallahassee townhouse, which a bank began foreclosure proceedings on in 2010. Rubio made only partial payments on that mortgage for five months in 2010, even as he held jobs as a consultant, professor and TV commentator. He has said the missed payments were due to a dispute over the terms of the mortgage.

State officials closed a criminal probe into Rivera's personal financial dealings without filing charges but didn't clear him entirely. They cited Florida's brief statute of limitations and its lax campaign finance laws for not charging him with living off of his campaign funds and failing to disclose his income.

In the last year, Rubio has publicly kept some distance from Rivera and has said that his friend has some issues he must address on the campaign trail. Still, Rubio threw a small Washington fundraiser for Rivera last week. So far, Rubio hasn't faced blowback from his friendship with Rivera.

"It's tough to say how that will play out," says Emilio Gonzalez, a consultant who served in the Bush administration and sees Rubio as a potentially formidable presidential candidate in 2016.

If Rubio were to end up on the GOP presidential ticket or mount his own national campaign in the coming years, he all but certainly would face questions about the scandal over the use of state GOP funds when he was the speaker of the Florida House.

The head of the party, Jim Greer, was forced to resign following revelations he and his second-in-command charged $1.5 million on party credit cards, much of it on luxurious hotels, fancy restaurants, chauffeured sedans and lavish entertaining. Greer's trial is set to start July 30, just ahead of the Republican convention, and many Republican observers anticipate he will detail unethical use of party money by other high-ranking GOP officials.

Rubio himself spent more than $100,000 on the party card between 2006 and 2008, paying off about $16,000 in personal expenses and claiming the rest as official party business. His records from 2005, when he was lobbying to become Florida House speaker, never were released. When asked about using the party card for personal expenses, Rubio has said he sometimes just pulled the wrong card out of his wallet and he has called it a "lesson learned."

He also has had to answer criticism for how he spent money donated to two political committees he formed - including payments to relatives. He has acknowledged the bookkeeping for at least one of the accounts was sloppy.

And then there's the fuzziness around his family's background.

Rubio long claimed his parents fled Fidel Castro's regime. But it was recently disclosed that they arrived several years before Castro took power – although they quickly embraced the Cuban exile community as Castro turned toward communism. Rubio has said the dates he gave were based on his parents' recollections.

There's another part of Rubio's upbringing that long had gone undisclosed, and the revelation is one that could turn off evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP.

Rubio was baptized as Mormon when his family lived for a few years in Las Vegas, thanks to the influence of cousins who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rubio returned to the Catholic Church as a young teen, and as an adult he has also frequently attended Baptist services.

When it comes to the vice presidency, Rubio's greatest liability may be one only time can resolve.

"I suspect that the Romney campaign is going to pick someone who is viewed as unquestionably qualified for the office," said Schmidt, who was intimately involved in McCain's selection of Sarah Palin. "To the extent that (Rubio's) in his first term, he's in the first two years of his term and he's 40 years old probably doesn't help him."

___

Farrington reported from Tallahassee, Fla.

Follow Laura Wides-Munoz on Twitter: (at)lwmunoz

Jim Geraghty, National Review
I would underline that Obama is using a familiar strategy because it’s not really clear that he’s ever had to use any other one. Once he won the Democratic primary for his State Senate seat in 1996, he had the seat for life, representing Hyde Park, an ultra-liberal neighborhood. He lost a House bid in 2000 against Democrat Bobby Rush, and then his next genuinely difficult fight was the 2004 Senate primary… when revelations from sealed divorce records doomed his best-funded opponent. Many of you are thinking, ‘wait, Jim, no, you’re thinking of...

Drucker & Livingston, Roll Call
As Washington's tea party class endeavors to rekindle the movement's magic, this month's Texas Republican Senate primary stands as a crucial test of its strength and influence.The effort might backfire in Nebraska, where GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) and conservative organizations including the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks have been stumping for state Treasurer Don Stenberg in Tuesday's three-way GOP Senate primary. 

Flying in the face of the national trend in favor of same-sex marriage, Indiana Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Gregg announced his support of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions on the same day President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. Gregg's Republican opponent, far-right Congressman Mike Pence, also supports the discriminatory amendment. Libertarian candidate Rupert Boneham, the former Survivor reality show star, has already announced his support of full marriage equality for all Hoosiers.

The entire national Democratic leadership reiterated their support for LGBT equality this week, including President Obama, Vice President Biden, House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, Senate leaders Harry Reid and Richard Durbin, as well as the heads of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The party is also expected to include a plank in their national platform to support marriage equality.

"John believes that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity," said campaign spokesperson Megan Jacobs over email. "However, he also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and does not support legalizing gay marriage. John doesn't base his policy positions on polling numbers or on what national Democrats are saying. His personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman and he's not going to change any of his beliefs because it's politically expedient." Jacobs refused to answer whether or not Gregg supported civil unions or domestic partner benefits.

"I just don't get it," said Boneham in reaction to Gregg's announcement. "I don't understand why they are so hostile to committed consenting adults getting the same legal protections and benefits as everyone else. I'm not just making empty statements about supporting LGBT Hoosiers. I've been saying publicly that I will fight for marriage equality in Indiana. I will put everything I've got into defeating this bigoted amendment and then I will focus in on repealing Indiana DoMA."

He continued: "The protections in the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions apply to each and every one of us. We aren't supposed to have second class citizens in this country and we won't stand by and allow there to be second class Hoosiers."

Democratic Base Reacts

Civil rights organizations and some of the candidate's backers were justifiably outraged by Gregg's endorsement of governmental discrimination of a minority group.

"A true commitment to dignity for all demands supporting marriage for same-sex couples," said Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz. "There is no dignity in being unable to make medical decisions for your partner in the hospital, in being unable to immediately place your name on your child's birth certificate, or in being asked to lie to your government on legal documents about your relationship to your spouse. John Gregg does not even have respect for same-sex couples to indicate that he supports a lesser status for same-sex couples such as civil unions."

While the AFL-CIO had previously endorsed Gregg's candidacy, his support for discrimination could put that assistance in jeopardy. Shortly following Gregg's acknowledgement that he endorses bigotry, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka put out a release saying, "Working people believe in equality and fairness and that's why we are happy to stand with millions of Americans and with President Obama in supporting marriage equality. Most important, we should respect and honor our friends, neighbors, and family members who want to take care of their families and their loved ones -- whatever their sexual orientation. We are proud to come together for a more just America."

"Marriage is not 'defined' by who it's denied to, and government has no business placing obstacles in the path of people seeking to take care of their loved ones," Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson commented. Seeking to cement discrimination into the constitution is a shameful failure of leadership for any candidate of any party. There is no 'respect' or 'dignity' in having your family targeted for attack by politicians who are supposed to stand for liberty and justice for all."

LGBT Democrats Respond

Criticism from the Indiana Stonewall Democrats was rather muted, however. While the organization refused to endorse noted anti-gay Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth in the last national election and is currently mulling over whether or not they will support this year's candidate, conservative Congressman Joe Donnelly, they refused to say whether or not Gregg's attack on the LGBT community will disqualify him from endorsement consideration.

"We are thrilled with the president's evolution on this important civil rights issue but recognize that not everyone is there yet," said President Aaron Schaler. "The president has had four plus years to evolve and the LGBT community hopes that with time and conversations that the next governor of Indiana will come to the same conclusion."

"It will be hard for the LGBT community and their supporters to find a statewide voice when it comes to the right of freedom to marry, unfortunately both Democratic and Republican candidates for governor support a constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry the man or women of choice," he continued. "ISD will be continuing our dialogue with John Gregg about the importance of protections for the LGBT community and the harm that an anti-gay marriage amendment will do to those that do have existing protections through their job or domestic partner benefits."

National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jerame Davis, a former Vice President of the Indiana chapter, was not as restrained in expressing his disappointment.

"As a Hoosier ex-patriot and a Democrat, I couldn't be more disappointed in John Gregg's regressive position on the freedom to marry," Davis said. "Staking out the most extreme position possible, Gregg sounds more like his Republican opponent than a principled Democrat. What choice is John Gregg giving equality-minded Hoosiers when he uses the same language and adopts the same position as a rabid culture warrior like Mike Pence?"

Gregg on LGBT and Progressive Issues

Jacobs, however, disagreed that the two candidates' positions were identical on LGBT rights. "The difference between John and Congressman Pence on this issue is that John believes our government in Indiana should be focused on creating job opportunities and improving education, not trying to legislate social issues," she said. "John also supports having strong hate crime legislation which includes members of the LGBT community while Congressman Pence has voted against hate crime legislation twice."

Hate crimes legislation passed nationally in 2009. While Pence voted against passage, Gregg has never served in Congress to have a vote on the record. Further requests for clarification on why Gregg would list his support for an already passed bill went unanswered. During Gregg's tenure as Indiana Speaker of the House, he didn't press for passage of a state-level hate crimes law. The state is one of five that doesn't have its own version of the national law.

Recent polling has shown that over 50 percent of Americans now support gays' and lesbians' freedom to marry. A 2011 poll of Hoosiers found that more voters opposed the proposed amendment than favored it.

Gregg seems to be bucking all of the traditional Democratic base. He has announced his opposition to women's right to choose and refused to condemn the state's new "right to work" law. In response to questions, Gregg has echoed his statement that each is a "divisive issue" and refused to further explain his positions.

A quick look at Gregg's campaign website shows absolutely nothing under the "Issues" section. From the looks of the campaign's recent strategy to alienate the Democratic base, it seems he could easily copy Republican Mike Pence's.

Accretive Health, a debt-collection company under fire from Minnesota and federal officials for aggressive tactics to squeeze money from hospital patients, is striking back at critics.

In a rebuttal to accusations made by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson (D), Accretive Health flatly denied it has violated federal or Minnesota laws governing debt collection and patient privacy and said its role in hospitals is to help patients find ways to pay for their medical care. "We are proud of what we do," the company said in 29-page report issued Friday evening. "Patients appreciate the education, expertise, and compassion that we provide."

Accretive Health has been battered in Minnesota, Washington, and on Wall Street since Swanson published a six-volume report on her website last month alleging that the Chicago-based company demanded that emergency room patients pay before receiving medical care, that collectors visited patients' bedsides asking for money, and that collectors employed harsh and deceptive tactics. Democratic lawmakers and federal agencies have made inquiries and Accretive Health shares lost more than half their value before rebounding after the company reported positive earnings Thursday.

The Friday report is the latest salvo in Accretive Health's counteroffensive. A week ago, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D), an ex-congressman and President Barack Obama's former White House chief of staff, came to the defense of the company , asking Swanson to ease off. Accretive Health hired well-connected Washington lobbyist Heather Podesta to "educate policymakers" about its services, according to a disclosure form filed with the Senate in March. In addition, Accretive Health has engaged a crisis public relations firm and its attorneys have hinted that the company may sue Swanson.

Accretive Health acknowledged that its employees or those of hospitals operated by Fairview Health Services in Minnesota spoke to nearly every patient about money during the appointment-making process, at registration, or in their hospital rooms. But the company said Swanson misrepresents these discussions. Emergency room patients were screened and stabilized first and no one was denied care, the company said. Accretive Health said the consultations have resulted in more than 250,000 people obtaining health coverage since 2003.

Swanson characterized these activities differently and said patients were made to think they wouldn't be treated if they didn't pay, which would violate federal law. Her reports alleged Accretive Health employees and hospital staff routinely badgered patients because they were under pressure from managers to collect the most money and were rebuked when they failed to meet targets.

Accretive Health also failed to protect confidential patient information, Swanson said. The attorney general sued Accretive Health in January over a case in which an employee's laptop computer, which contained information about more than 23,000 patients, was stolen from a parked car. Employees of Accretive Health's Medical Financial Solutions division also threatened to report patients to credit agencies, which isn't permitted, the attorney general said. The New York Times first reported Swanson's allegations.

The company may seek to contract the debt-collection work among the most criticized to other firms, Accretive Health CEO Mary Tolan said during a conference call with investors Wednesday.

Neither Friday's report nor any change in Accretive Health's business model is likely to end the controversy as federal agencies and lawmakers have taken an interest.

The Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade Commission, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have joined Swanson in questioning whether Accretive Health goes too far in efforts to make sure hospital clients get paid. Accretive Health's report is in response to questions from Franken, who has scheduled a Senate committee hearing in St. Paul on May 30.

"It seems to me a new, aggressive way of approaching patients," Waxman said. "This is part of an ongoing concern we've had about hospitals charging more to uninsured patients." The federal health care reform law says nonprofit hospitals can only charge uninsured people the "amounts generally billed to individuals who have insurance," according to the Internal Revenue Service. Minnesota law requires hospitals to charge uninsured people the same rate as the insurance company that covers the largest number of their patients, Swanson's reports said.

Investigators from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services visited one of Fairview's hospitals last week to follow up on Swanson's report, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported Friday.

The head of that agency, Marilyn Tavenner, wrote hospital industry groups this week to remind them of their obligations to patients and federal law. "We would have serious concerns with the legality of any hospital policy or procedure that may discourage individuals from seeking emergency care," Tavenner wrote to the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, and the Association of American Medical Colleges on Wednesday.

The Federal Trade Commission in March began looking into whether Accretive Health has violated federal debt-collection and credit-reporting laws, the company disclosed in its quarterly report Wednesday.

The American Hospital Association revised its guidelines on hospital billing and collection practices last week in response to the controversy surrounding Accretive Health and to incorporate new requirements from health care reform. "America’s hospitals are committed to doing everything possible to better serve patients and to treat them equitably, with dignity, compassion and respect from the bedside to the billing office," the document said. "Hospitals exist to serve. Their ability to serve well requires a relationship with their communities built on trust and compassion."

Reps. McKeon & Ryan, RCP
Last year, as the federal government approached a limit on how much it could legally borrow, the Obama administration asked Congress to rubber-stamp an increase in the government's borrowing authority without any spending cuts to match.When House Republicans made clear that any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by an even greater amount of spending reduction, the President insisted that he would not accept a debt-limit deal that did not include large tax increases on American families and businesses.All of this work was made more difficult by the Senate's failure to...

The defeat of French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Sunday's French elections provides a clear lesson to America. So does the fall of the conservative Dutch government, the rebuke of the British conservative government in local elections, the defeat of the establishment parties in Greece and the turmoil in Spain. Europeans are using democratic elections and demonstrations to send a message: Austerity is spreading unacceptable human misery.

For months, conservative pundits have criticized President Barack Obama for not forcing more deficit reduction. House Republicans boast that their Mitt Romney-endorsed budget would cut deficits faster by slashing spending -- although they refuse to reveal what they would slash. Deficits are unpopular. They represent out-of-control government spending. Tightening our belts in hard times seems both responsible and inevitable.

For years, Greece's soaring deficits have been the object lesson of the right: Run up deficits and investors won't buy your bonds and you'll face bankruptcy.

But the real lesson of Greece, Spain, France, Ireland and others is that slashing spending in a weak economy serves only to drive the economy back into recession, increase unemployment and spread poverty. And it does little to reduce deficits or to reassure investors who worry about the economy tanking. Austerity is like bleeding a patient who is still recovering from a heart attack.

The U.S. enjoys better growth than Europe because we've done more to stimulate our economy and have been slower to turn to deficit reduction. But states and localities forced to balance budgets because of state constitutional requirements are laying off teachers and police and firefighters. Now the federal budget is being cut, adding to the drag on the economy. And if, no matter who wins this fall, the administration and Congress join in a "grand bargain" that combines spending cuts and tax increases, Americans may well learn the European lesson about austerity directly.

This economy is barely out of the operating room and just beginning to recover. Large companies are sitting on trillions of profits looking for customers. Small businesses won't hire until they see consumers coming in the door. We still have mass unemployment, falling wages and more families losing their homes. Yet Washington seems unable or unwilling to act.

This week, a committee of the Senate and House will consider the only major jobs program before the Congress: the transportation bill, which funds rebuilding roads, bridges and mass transit. The Senate passed a small, two-year authorization with overwhelming bipartisan support. But zealous House Republicans have defeated everything except temporary extensions.

This makes no sense. In fact, we should be doing much more to rebuild America. Interest rates are at near-record lows. The construction industry is idle. There will never be a better opportunity to borrow the money needed to rebuild an infrastructure that is in dangerous disrepair.

Maybe we should pay the legislators to junket in Europe. Let them see the riots, visit with defeated politicians, talk to embarrassed economists now calling for a change in course. The House Republican caucus doesn't seem to worry about the growing poverty in our cities or wonder whether those cities will blow up this summer. Perhaps they might reconsider if they learn from the Europeans that enforcing brutal measures on citizens to pay for the mess caused by banks doesn't just increase poverty and unemployment, it shortens political careers.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut lawmakers' approval of the use of medical marijuana includes strict regulations for the cultivation and distribution in an attempt to avoid problems other states have run into when legalizing the plant for medical use.

The bill, passed early Saturday by the state Senate, is headed to Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who said in a statement that he plans to sign it, as he believes the law would "avoid the problems encountered in some other states."

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana. Since California passed the country's first such law in 1996, states have struggled with disorganization and clashes with the federal government, which considers the drug illegal and of no medicinal value.

"Everything from California back is trying to get away from chaos," said Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws.

Advocates say the Connecticut proposal goes further than any other state in regulating the drug.

Under the legislation, marijuana would be sold in multiple forms at dispensaries, which must have a licensed pharmacist on staff. It would be marketed only to patients authorized to use it. The measure also outlines diseases that would be treated by the drug, establishes a registry for patients and caregivers and restricts cultivating the plant to growers with permits.

"Experience has shown that having statewide structures in place makes it easier for everyone to understand what the rules really are," said Alan Shackelford, who serves on a state advisory work group for medical marijuana in Colorado and helped advise Connecticut lawmakers on their proposal.

Opponents in Connecticut, however, point to a letter from U.S. Attorney David Fein, who wrote that while the Department of Justice would not go after seriously ill patients who use the illegal drug, federal laws would be enforced against those who manufacture and distribute it.

"The violation of a federal law to me is a big stop sign and I just can't bring myself to go through it," said Rep. Steven Mikutel, a Griswold Democrat who voted against the legislation when it passed the state House.

In addition to federal efforts to shut down dispensaries in California and, to a lesser extent, Colorado, problems with regulation have arisen in states where the drug was legalized through ballot initiatives and the system was implemented without regulations in place, advocates say. Likewise, some states don't allow medical marijuana dispensaries and patients are left to grow their own.

Because of this, several states have been taking steps to strengthen regulations.

Colorado imposed tight regulation and state government control over dispensaries in 2010. New Jersey and Delaware also have passed laws to strictly regulate medical marijuana.

California state Sen. Mark Leno said he was working to enact legislation that would further clarify that care providers be exempt from prosecution for providing the drug to patients.

But Leno said he is uncertain how states' attempts to improve regulation will succeed in reducing federal scrutiny. He points to small patient-owned and patient-run dispensaries in his district that the federal government has shut down.

Allison Price, a DOJ spokeswoman, said in a statement the department "is focusing its limited resources on significant drug traffickers, not seriously ill individuals who are in compliance with applicable state medical marijuana statues."

INDIANAPOLIS -- Republican Richard Lugar has shown through a lengthy Senate career that he can broker compromises on international and domestic issues, and avoid the acrimony that often brings Washington to a halt.

It's those qualities that may end up costing the former Rhodes Scholar and Indianapolis mayor the seat he first won in 1976.

Lugar, one of the longest-serving senators, is facing perhaps his toughest GOP challenger ever in tea party-backed state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who hopes to end the incumbent's 36-year Capitol Hill career with a victory in Tuesday's primary.

Mourdock has spent months arguing that Lugar is not conservative enough for the right-leaning state, and he hopes to benefit from the split between the party's establishment and conservative wings. The challenger, aided by outside groups, also has tried to make the anti-incumbent argument, portraying Lugar as nothing more than a Washington insider.

"When Dick Lugar moved to Washington, he left behind his conservative Hoosier values," Mourdock said in a recent ad.

The attacks have taken a toll. Public polls show a close race, though internal surveys by several Republicans show Mourdock with a slight edge.

Lugar, 80, has "had his turn," said Judy Young of Brooklyn.

Lugar and his supporters have tried to turn his Washington career into an asset by arguing that his deep relationships in the capital make him best positioned to represent Indiana Republicans.

"I'm not for Dick Lugar for what he's done, but for what he can do," Gov. Mitch Daniels said in a recent campaign ad. "Our point of view gets heard and has a better chance to win out with Dick Lugar."

If Lugar loses, the seat probably will become a top target of national Democrats hoping to retain a narrow Senate majority. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said President Barack Obama's campaign and independent groups would be expected to rally behind U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly.

That's less likely if Lugar, who's seen as a strong general election candidate because of his bipartisan record, prevails Tuesday.

Friends and foes alike say while Lugar had the backing of much of the state's establishment, including Daniels, he was slow to recognize the threat that Mourdock posed. They point to warning signs nationally from the 2010 primaries that severely divided the GOP. Tea party-supported candidates beat incumbents such as Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and establishment hopefuls in primaries in Colorado, Delaware and elsewhere.

Lugar has given critics fodder to assail him as out of touch with Indiana and Midwestern values.

He sold his Indianapolis home in 1977, and Democrats are now using that against him. Democrats and tea partyers mocked the fact that he lived in McLean, Va., near Washington, and raised the residency issue with Indiana authorities. Lugar briefly was ruled ineligible to vote in Indiana and later was forced to change his voter registration to his family farm in Indianapolis.

He also had to pay the Senate for more than $14,000 spent on hotel stays for weekend visits to Indiana.

One Mourdock supporter, 49-year-old Alan Horton of Mooresville, asked, "How does a man who doesn't live in this state vote for himself?" Many others have the same question.

Lugar hasn't done much to woo the tea party. In fact, he blamed the tea party for keeping the Senate in Democratic hands after the 2010 elections by nominating candidates who were too conservative to win general elections in a few critical states.

He also struggled to find a message that would appeal to the tea party-infused Indiana GOP.

Initially, he focused on Obama, blaming him for not supporting construction of a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. Later, he turned his sights on Mourdock, attacking him as "untrustworthy" in a series of negative ads. Lugar's campaign spent at least $2.5 million on advertising to answer Mourdock's charges and cut him down. Republicans say that effort backfired because the attacks undercut Lugar's reputation as a statesman.

"Personally he's just not mean, but his campaign has been so mean that once Mourdock became quasi-credible and people listened to him, the negatives began backfiring," said former U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, who is neutral in the race.

Lugar acknowledges hiccups but insists he's pleased with his campaign's effort.

"Obviously you can always think back over things that could have been done better," Lugar said. "You never have 100 percent."

Mourdock, a former geologist and two-term treasurer, spent more than $2 million to press his message. He got help from the anti-tax Club for Growth, which has spent about $1.7 million assailing Lugar.

He has been a fixture in GOP circles for some time but had struggled to win an election until his 2006 run for treasurer. That office catapulted him into the national spotlight when he challenged the Chrysler bankruptcy in a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and endeared him to tea party activists looking for a change.

He may be rewarded Tuesday.

___

PHOENIX -- Allies of an ousted Arizona state senator known nationally for his rigid stance on U.S.-Mexico border policy appeared defeated Thursday after trying to pass legislation that would have repaid the author of the state's hardline immigration law for expenses related to fighting the voter effort that removed him from office.

Critics said it would be outrageous to reimburse Russell Pearce, the suburban Phoenix Republican who had been one of Arizona's most powerful politicians.

Democratic Sen. Linda Lopez said she had received more than 150 emails critical of the proposal, "and they're still coming in. People don't know it's not going anywhere."

Supporters turned to the state constitution, saying it required them to act on Pearce's behalf.

A Pearce backer, Sen. Steve Smith, said the bill was not advanced "because people like him, to give him money," but rather because "we have to do it."

Pearce did not return calls from The Associated Press seeking comment.

He stepped into the national spotlight by spearheading the effort to pass the immigration enforcement law known as SB1070, which is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 2010 law contained provisions that led to protests from civil rights groups and boycotts of the state, including a requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status based on suspicion and a requirement that all immigrants obtain or carry registration papers.

Pearce's recall in November, forced by a petition drive, was the first for an Arizona lawmaker.

His allies led the push to have the Legislature reimburse him for the nearly $262,000 his campaign spent in fighting the effort.

A particular point of irritation for opponents was that a fundraising effort covered Pearce's expenses.

The Arizona Constitution says officials who are subjects of recall elections can have their expenses paid by the state. However, there's no law that would allow that to happen.

The legislation proposed by a small group of Pearce supporters on a special joint legislative committee would have added such a law.

The bill was pulled from consideration in the Senate on Thursday with Majority Leader Andy Biggs, a Pearce ally, saying it lacked enough votes to pass. Republicans who make up two-thirds of the Senate were split on the issue, and Democrats were united in opposition.

Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican who co-sponsored SB1070, said Pearce told him Thursday that he favored the legislation but that he wouldn't seek reimbursement.

Pearce said he wanted the bill pulled because his situation was a distraction, Kavanagh told the House during a brief floor speech Thursday evening.

Michael Warren, Weekly Standard
The May 8 election could also turn out to be the final fight of 80-year-old incumbent Dick Lugar's long career. A six-term senator and former Indianapolis mayor, Lugar is an institution, but conservative forces within the Republican party have long grumbled that he is too moderate and too ensconced in the Washington bubble, where he's been since entering the Senate nearly 36 years ago. Now, Lugar is in danger of losing the GOP nomination to Mourdock, who is giving Lugar the toughest electoral battle he's ever faced.

Seth Jones, Wall Street Journal
A year after U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, most policy makers and pundits believe al Qaeda is near collapse. "Another nail in the coffin," one senior U.S. official told me after the death of an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan last month from a U.S. drone strike. In testimony before the Senate in February, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the core al Qaeda is likely becoming of "symbolic importance." 

We begin by saying we certainly hope we can live up to such an exuberant headline. You will have to judge for yourself whether all those exclamation points were justified or not.

The real reason for such titular excitement is the convergence of two contests here at Friday Talking Points headquarters. See? I had to restrain myself from typing yet another exclamation point, there.

One contest is over, and we are able to (finally!) crown a winner. And one contest is just beginning, so haul out your crystal ball and peer into the future with us, in the comments.

Last December, we ran a column entitled "Call The Newtsplosion Contest." In it, we used explosive terminology (such as "Newtroglycerine" -- although we have to admit that "Newtonium" and "Newtron Bomb" didn't occur to us until later...) to describe what was likely going to end Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign.

Now, you'll have to harken back to an earlier time -- a time when Newt was seen (by himself, at the very least) as "the inevitable Republican nominee." That was the setting for this contest, which was announced on December 12. In it, we invited folks to guess when Newt would say something so outrageous that he, in essence, disqualified himself from the race and went down in flames.

We have to report, sadly, that Newt Gingrich exits the race this week with more of a whimper (desperately seeking Delaware?) than any sort of bang. My own entry in the contest was "right after Super Tuesday" which would have been around March 7, just to show how far off I was. There were even farther-out guesses, such as "December 27, during the Trump debate" and "Newt will win the White House in a landslide," to show how wide the field of prognostication was.

But our winning entry was, quite simply, stunningly accurate this time around. Over at the Huffington Post comments section, we got an entry for "April 17, 2012." This guess was only eight days off -- which we feel is pretty impressive, considering how long ago the contest ran.

What is even more impressive is that this is the first time ever -- since I've begun running these amusing contests, I believe -- that we have a certified two-time winner! If that doesn't deserve an exclamation point, I don't know what does....

TakeSake of the Huffington Post comments section is our winner in the "Call The Newtsplosion Contest." Earlier, way back in FTP[141], we awarded TakeSake the 500 Quatloos he earned by guessing -- within a single day -- when Rahm Emanuel would exit the White House. That contest began even further back, in FTP[114] ("When Will Rahm Go?"), and although TakeSake did hedge his bet a bit, he also won stylistic points for his pithy comment on the entire "Quatloos as a betting medium" thing:

Kirk was dealing with an alien world of perverse, socialpathic [sic] gamblers. Obama is dealing with something much more sinister: Washington politics.

In any case, our hat is off to our two-time winner, and a whopping 10,000 Quatloos is hereby awarded to TakeSake for so accurately predicting the exits from the stage of both Rahm Emanuel and Newt Gingrich. Well done! Well done, indeed!

When one contest ends, another must begin. Well, not always, but today at any rate.

Since all the excitement is over in the Republican primaries (boredom, thy name is Romney... ahem), we reluctantly turn to opening the field for entries as to who will be Mitt's running mate. We say "reluctantly" because we really despise the saccharine cuteness of the term "Veepstakes," but since that's what we'll be holding, we are forced to use it. Sigh.

The question "Who will Mitt pick?" is already on the lips of cocktail-sippers inside the beltway, and this question will be batted around many a Sunday morning punditfest until the Republican National Convention (or until we're all sick of it, which will come much sooner than that). The field of possibilities is either open to everyone sporting a Republican bumpersticker on their car, or will hinge solely on the question of whether Mitt will have to get down on one knee or two to beg Marco Rubio to accept -- depending on who is giving odds, at this point.

We're going to open the contest with our own wacky guess, which we limited to selecting from "people whose names we haven't heard mentioned yet" -- which turned out to be limiting indeed. So we're picking a sort of worst-case scenario that seems to (so far) have occurred to nobody else out there: Scott Walker. Yep, the guy in Wisconsin. If Walker beats his recall vote, than he will become a rallying figure for Republicans in 2012, with his conservative credentials flawlessly displayed. He's a Midwesterner who could turn a few states (so the Romney thinking will go), but he's not so charismatic that he'll continually upstage Mitt on the campaign trail.

We certainly hope this doesn't come to pass, we should mention. Again, we had only those whom nobody else had considered to choose from (so as to not pre-empt choices others may make in the comments), as a self-imposed rule, and this was the best we could come up with given such strict limitations.

Think we're wrong? Got your own ideas? Well, toss them out there in the comments! Prove your own prowess of prediction!

(Because there will likely be a tie, a valid entry must name the exact date and time (East Coast time) when the veep choice will be announced by Mitt's campaign. To aid you in this task, the Republican National Convention begins on August 27. Winner will be the person who selects the correct running mate, and who also gets closest to the actual date and time of the announcement.)

 

Moving on to our weekly awards, we have to at least give a nod towards Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who just got the Violence Against Women Act renewal through his chamber with a very impressive 68-31 vote. That's a lot of Republicans for a Democratic bill, it bears mentioning. Republican senators (well, some of them, at any rate) have apparently woken up to the damage the War on Women is doing to their party among the electorate. In any case, for such a strong bipartisan victory, Reid deserves at least an Honorable Mention this week.

But the really impressive Democrat this week was none other than Barack Obama. While the mainstream media's "journalists" were competing with each other over how many times they could say the word "prostitute" on the airwaves, Obama was out in the countryside changing the Washington debate.

While we do realize that many would have awarded Obama the coveted MIDOTW award merely for his most-excellent "slow-jamming the news" segment on Jimmy Fallon's late-night show, we like to think we have higher standards here. I mean, the video is indeed priceless, but not impressive enough for the award.

Instead, Obama is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week because he got the Republicans to concede a major issue -- keeping student loan rates low. Before this week, Republicans were against the very concept. This week, after Obama's strong showing on a few swing-state college campuses, Republicans have reconsidered and are now setting the battle up over "how to pay for it" -- exactly what they did when they caved on the payroll tax holiday. In other words -- Obama is going to get a legislative victory, and it is going to happen before the June deadline. Bank on it.

That's a pretty impressive week, for an incumbent president. For utterly changing the debate from "should we do this?" to "how will we pay for this?" our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, due to sheer leadership qualities (and not slow-jam qualities), is none other than President Obama.

(Congratulate President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.)

 

Joe Biden has been... um, saying some interesting things this week. Sigh.

We were -- right up until today -- convinced that the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week was going to go to Joe Lieberman, for several reasons: (1.) Just because. (2.) We're tired of seeing him pop up on our television screens for no reason (3.) We won't have ol' Joe to kick around much longer.

Seriously, the best thing about the 2012 election -- better even than Obama winning a 50-state landslide, should such a thing happen -- will be the fact that Joe Lieberman will not be back in the Senate next year. Following this logic, there are only a limited number of weeks we can possibly hand out more MDDOTW awards to him, and we want to make sure he gets all he's worth.

But then we checked the news this morning, and learned that the House has already voted on their version of the student loan rate extension, which conveniently also doubles as part of the Republican War on Women, because they're going to pay for the whole thing by raiding a fund set up to provide preventative care -- like breast exams, for instance.

The really disappointing news, however, was that John Boehner could not have passed this without Democratic votes. The Tea Partiers were apparently off in their perpetual snit, and the bill only passed by the grace of 13 Democratic votes -- by a total of 215 to 195. Without these votes, it would have failed.

Now, normally, when a bill passes and a few Democrats cross party lines, it winds up making no difference to the outcome. They are not the key votes, in other words. This time, they were.

Because the vote is so recent, at this time we are unable to provide a list of those 13 Democrats who voted against H.R. 4628 today. We must therefore award, in absentia, the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to every House Democrat who voted against the bill.

[In a day or so, you should be able to search the Library of Congress' site for "HR4628" and see which Democrats voted against this bill. We apologize for the lack of contact information at this time.]

 

Volume 208 (4/27/12)

Welcome once again to our ceaseless efforts at convincing Democrats to get better at staying on message. Obama did a pretty masterful job this week on the student loan issue, so Democrats don't have much heavy lifting to do on that front.

But every little bit helps. We provide these talking points, as always, for everyone to use freely -- from prominent Democrats interviewed on Sunday morning political shows, down to rank-and-file Democrats standing around the water cooler on Monday morning.

Enjoy... and don't forget to cast your veepstakes vote in the comments!

 

   Voting for violence against women

Republicans are already on the run on the student loan issue. Democrats should turn this into a full rout with their advantage on the Violence Against Women Act.

"I see that the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act passed the Senate this week, but I was shocked that something like thirty Republicans voted against it. This wasn't a close vote -- the measure passed with 68 votes -- but still, it was eye-opening. Up until this year, this law was renewed with overwhelming support, but this year over half the Republicans in the Senate voted against it. Republicans say that there simply isn't any kind of 'War on Women' being waged by their party, but I think women voters are smart enough to judge them on what they do as well as what they say. Two-thirds of the Republicans in the Senate just essentially voted in favor of violence against women. That is shameful, to be bluntly honest. I have a message for Republicans in the House: women are watching you, on this bill."

 

   War on Women

This is really starting to get under Republicans' skins, which is excellent. They are on defense, and because they are they feed right into the Democratic "framing" on the issue every time they bring it up. So use the phrase whenever you get the chance, because they're obviously getting scared of it.

"Republicans in the House just passed their version of keeping student loan rates down, but they just couldn't resist opening another battlefield in their ongoing War on Women to do so. In order to pay for the student loan program, Republicans raided money set aside for preventative health care like breast exams and checkups for women across America. Even more insultingly, they call this a 'slush fund.' That's exactly how high women rate with the Republican Party: slush. Women are merely dirty snow to be scraped off Republicans' bootheels. No wonder women voters are fleeing the Republican Party and waking up to the fact that Democrats are the ones fighting for women's health, and not against it."

 

   Obama convinced Republicans

Give Obama a victory pat on the back, while the dust is still settling.

"President Obama showed real leadership this week on the student loan issue. Before Obama brought it up, Republicans were actually against keeping student loan rates affordable for millions of Americans. One even called it the 'stage three cancer of socialism,' whatever that means. By refusing to give up this fight, Barack Obama actually convinced the Republicans that his way of thinking was the right way, and they dropped their opposition to the idea like a hot potato. One wonders how many public opinion polls the Republicans had to conduct before the president brought them over to his position."

 

   Etch A Sketching

OK, this one is a blatant plug for a frivolous column I wrote yesterday. But still...

"I see Mitt Romney quickly Etch A Sketched on his position on keeping student loans affordable for middle-class American students. I look forward to watching Mitt Etch A Sketching on many other issues, in the next few weeks. I just wonder if the Republican base will let him get away with it -- especially if he comes out for any version of what conservatives sneeringly call 'amnesty,' after earlier being against such a concept. As I said, the Etch A Sketching has barely begun, folks."

 

   What was that about Europe, Mitt?

Salon pointed this one out, to give credit where it is due.

"I notice Mitt Romney's not saying much about Europe, after the news that the severe austerity measures Britain took -- all that budget-cutting that Republicans love -- has driven their country into a double-dip recession. Mitt used to love using Europe as an example in his speeches, but after -- yet again -- it has been proven that too much austerity in a weak economy is a bad thing, Mitt's been strangely silent on the issue. Still in favor of austerity, Mitt? The U.S. isn't going to become Greece if Mitt wins the election, instead we'll get Britain's double-dip recession."

 

   Bishops and politics

Let's just see how that political fracas with the Catholic Church is going, shall we?

"I see that Paul Ryan now sees the Catholic bishops in a new light, now that they've strongly come out against his budget plans. The bishops quite accurately noted that Ryan is balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and helpless, while continuing to shower tax cuts on the wealthy -- which I don't remember Jesus being in favor of, actually. I find it interesting that when the Catholic bishops say something the Republicans like, Republicans talk about how the church should be heeded, but when the bishops point out inconvenient truths, then it seems to be up to each individual Catholic to make up his or her own mind. Funny how that works, isn't it?"

 

   Let's just have a sing-off

Barack Obama -- while not technically singing -- caused apparent apoplexy in the Republican Party this week, on Jimmy Fallon's show. Going on the theory that whatever makes Republican heads explode the most must be a good thing, why not double-down? Heh.

"The White House has announced today that instead of three debates with Mitt Romney this fall, they will instead only participate in two formal debates. For the third event, President Obama will be challenging Mitt Romney to a singing contest, to be moderated by Simon Cowell. We'll let Americans vote with their phones and texts, and any money raised will be used to provide singing lessons for the loser. We feel this will provide American with a much more entertaining evening than another dry old political debate, and we invite all of America to participate in the voting afterwards."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

Elizabeth Warren is different. She is the Ted Williams of the battle on behalf of the men and women who are correctly called the 99 percent, from the heartland to the homeless, who want nothing more than a good job, a fair deal and a nation that fully lives up to its promise to all.

Warren is what Margaret Thatcher called a "conviction politician." Thatcher's convictions were steadfast principles of conservatism. Elizabeth Warren's convictions are fearless support for economic equity and betterment that brings jobs for the jobless, fair wages for workers, homes for families, loyalty to vets, learning for kids and a decent society that honors the values of the Sermon on the Mount and the great religions to love and help the poor.

Through the whip hand of the 1 percent even churches are being foreclosed, bank fees are climbing again and insurance premiums are rising, which is why:

The ground in this tired town will shake if Massachusetts voters send Warren to the Senate to stand for, speak for, work for tirelessly and fight for fearlessly the workers and consumers who are the heart and soul of America.

Teachers, police, firefighters, nurses, librarians, women, Hispanics, vets and all whose jobs and rights are under attack would find a fearless friend and fighter in a Sen. Warren. Those hurt by fraudulent mortgages, Mafia-like bank rates, exported jobs, unfair wages, gouging premiums and ugly consumer rip-offs will find a faithful friend and fearless fighter in a Sen. Warren.

Warren should not be elected because she is a Democrat, but because she is what Democrats should be and many Republicans used to be. I have no doubt that John, Robert and Edward Kennedy would be supporting her and barnstorming alongside her with enthusiasm and passion, and:

I believe the Roosevelts would be standing beside Elizabeth, not only Franklin and Eleanor, who would applaud her battles for workers, consumers and the downtrodden, but also Teddy Roosevelt, who believed with the ferocity of his integrity that the great battles he fought must invoke not only his name but his deeds as a call to arms for the battles Warren has fought throughout her career.

In a Washington full of revolving-door sellouts who effortlessly glide between special-interest sinecures and government jobs earning personal fortunes on the payroll of the 1 percent, Warren will never sell her public conscience for private wealth. She is totally unbought and permanently unbossed.

Like Ted Williams at bat, her eye is clear, her mind focused and her swing perfect for the values she believes in and the men and women whose economic betterment she fights for with the ferocity of integrity that made Teddy Roosevelt unique in his times, as Warren is unique in ours.

Scott Brown is a decent man whose reelection could bring to power in the Senate the party that attacks programs to create jobs, advance pay equity, defend homeowners and protect consumers. Brown will do his duty for his party. Every time he does, the inequity and pain will rise.

Brown maneuvers. Warren leads.

The year 1941 was the greatest in baseball history, when Joe DiMaggio had his record hitting streak and Ted Williams hit .400. Williams opened the last day of the season hitting .39955. His manager suggested he sit out the doubleheader. His average would have been rounded up to the magic .400, but Ted said no way. Never. He would earn his .400 with no hiding on the bench. Williams went 6 for 8 that day and closed the year hitting .406.

Williams had integrity. So does Elizabeth Warren, which is why oceans of dirty money are working to destroy her and why I call her the Ted Williams of the battle for fairness, jobs and justice for the 99 percent in the war of the worlds of Election 2012.

This column was originally published at The Hill.

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

As one of the U.S. Senate’s most endangered Democratic incumbents, Claire McCaskill knows she’s a top target of the new conservative super PACs that have radically reordered the political landscape in 2012.

Independent conservative groups have already spent more than $3 million on television and radio ads in Missouri hoping to pick up one of the four seats that Republicans need to take control of the Senate.

Jeffrey Lord, The American Spectator
Will Harry Reid make Mitt Romney President?Will the Senate Democrats' leader, a Mormon as is Romney, be the inadvertent shield for the religious bigotry card liberals -- in particular MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell -- are itching to turn into the ultimate election weapon?A major election issue the left wing ex-New York Times columnist Frank Rich (now writing for New York Magazine) calls "the big dog that has yet to bark." 

WASHINGTON -- A Southern Republican is raising questions about whether President Barack Obama is capably leading the government.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama tells reporters the president should take responsibility for the Secret Service, GSA and energy company Solyndra scandals and insist on a government culture in which taxpayer dollars are not wasted. He said, "I don't sense that this president has shown that kind of managerial leadership."

Sessions is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is expected to receive a briefing Friday from the Secret Service and hold a hearing next week. The service has ousted three of 11 agents and officers alleged to have cavorted with prostitutes in Colombia in advance of Obama's visit there.

The president has pushed for a thorough investigation into the incident.

The Republican Party has justified its recent rightward lurch on an array of issues, including immigration, in the name of restoring the Constitution's original meaning and preserving the rule of law. Their most extreme policy prescriptions are frequently couched in spurious constitutional or rule-of-law frames or by vague references to the will of the people. But their grossly contorted re-imaginings transform the face of the Constitution from "Mona Lisa" sublime to "Devouring Saturn" grotesque.

Take the most prominent example, health care reform: Conservatives didn't simply trash it on policy grounds -- they fallaciously assaulted the law as an illegitimate and unconstitutional power grab. And obscuring extremist positions under the "rule of law" cloak has become a standard tactic by Republicans in the immigration arena. In the last few years, we've seen immigration restrictionists in Congress call for a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment's constitutional guarantee of citizenship to those born here. We've also watched Republican legislators and governors -- mostly in the South -- argue that states have the right to regulate and enforce their own immigration policy. The Supreme Court is now considering those claims as well.

But the rejection of well-settled legal constructs in favor of extremist positions has also been replicated in the policy arena. Where common sense once produced middle-of-the-road, bipartisan policy prescriptions, disdain for pragmatism now produces extreme proposals that are defended on rule of law grounds.

Nowhere has this been more obvious than in current Republican prescriptions for addressing the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. As recently as 2006, 23 Senate Republicans -- in a Republican-controlled Senate -- voted with 38 Democrats and one Independent to restore legality by requiring undocumented workers to register, pay fines, learn English, and go to the back of the line in order to earn the privilege of citizenship. Why? Because no one believed then, as no one really believes now, that, as a practical matter, we would, could, or should pursue policies of mass expulsion that would drive millions of undocumented immigrants and their millions of U.S. citizen spouses and children out of the country.

That is, no one seriously believed it until the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced his extreme immigration policy platform of "self-deportation." His idea, also known in restrictionist circles as attrition through enforcement, embraces the very concept of mass expulsion that the Republican Senate categorically rejected six short years ago. It envisions a suite of policies that will make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants and their families that they will pack up and leave the country.

Romney and his surrogates defend this proposal as necessary to restore the rule of law. But states and municipalities that have tried to adopt similarly harsh enforcement measures show that the exact opposite is true. The policies don't drive undocumented immigrants -- nearly two-thirds of whom have lived in the United States for more than a decade -- out of the country. Instead those policies drive people further underground or to more friendly locales. Experience shows that by pushing people farther outside the system, Romney's approach would actually deepen systemic dysfunction and perpetuate the illegality Republicans claim to abhor.

The other frequently proffered justification for this Republican shift to immigration extremism is that the public demands it. But anyone who has even casually perused the polling data knows that nothing could be further from the truth. For years now, Americans of all political stripes have consistently supported a rational solution that balances border security with a tough but practical earned path to legal status for the undocumented.

Republican politicians nonetheless assert that this balanced approach, which garners overwhelming public support including majority support among self-identified Republican voters, will not fly. Why not? Because it can't get the votes needed to pass, they tell us. But why can't it get the votes to pass? Because Republican politicians won't vote for it. Circularity much?

In fact, this is exactly the circular logic Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wants us to accept as his rationale for lowering the bar on citizenship for DREAM Act kids. Sen. Rubio announced plans to introduce a bill similar in many respects to the DREAM Act: It would provide legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought here at a young age, graduated from high school, demonstrated good moral character, and attended college or entered the military. But here's the kicker: It would not provide, as the current iteration of the DREAM Act does, an earned path to permanent residence or citizenship.

The Florida senator defends this limitation as necessary to prevent amnesty, the ultimate anti-rule of law label Republicans loosely affix to any policy they dislike. (Curiously, actual tax amnesties for the uber-wealthy over the last several years generated no comparable heartburn among Republican elected officials.) But this amnesty argument that gets trotted out whenever convenient simply obscures the reality that the party is badly hamstrung by this far-right tilt. The truth is that even this stripped-down version of the DREAM Act will not garner the Republican support needed from House Republicans in order to move it forward.

To be sure, Sen. Rubio deserves applause for publicly expressing a desire to find a way forward on immigration at least vis-à-vis the "blameless" kids. He clearly understands and has eloquently articulated how destructive his party's position on immigration has been in its efforts to win over Hispanic voters. Even Romney has recently acknowledged to his donors the depth of this problem and his hope that a Republican DREAM Act alternative (presumably Sen. Rubio's) will help rehabilitate the party's image.

But by justifying this DREAM-less proposal as necessary to prevent "amnesty", Sen. Rubio simply follows the current Republican playbook. He empowers rather than marginalizes the extremists in his party by regurgitating this rule of law frame and lending a thin patina of legitimacy to their position. Maybe that's the best he can do given the Republican Party's rapid move to the fringe.

Brandishing the rule of law argument as a political weapon instead of actually trying to restore legality diminishes our democracy. That's a hefty price to pay in the defense of extremism.

Marshall Fitz is the Director of Immigration Policy at American Progress.

With an iconic name and access to Washington cash, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack looked like the great Republican hope when he entered Florida's U.S. Senate race and posed a serious threat to Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson.

Six months later, however, Mack has proven to be neither a potent statewide candidate nor a shoe-in to win the Republican nomination against his little-known rivals.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Sen. Richard Lugar sounded wistful in his gratitude when he thanked supporters packed in the skybox of the Indiana Pacers' home court, as though he could see the approaching end of a political career that has spanned nearly half a century.

"I thank all of you, the 50 or 60 of you who are co-sponsors of the rally. We appreciate very much your willingness to put your own names on the line and be helpful in bringing together this assembly," said the 80-year-old Indiana Republican who was first elected to the Senate in 1976.

That characteristically understated demeanor has endeared Lugar to generations of Hoosier voters. It belies the fierce battle in Republican circles over whether to retire him now or give him six more years in Washington.

Lugar and Utah's Orrin Hatch, 78 and sent to Capitol Hill in the same year as Lugar, are tea partyers' top Senate Republican targets for defeat this year, portrayed as old bulls out of touch with today's conservatives. They are the GOP's two most senior members in the Senate.

Both have come out swinging, a lesson learned when Hatch's fellow Utah senator, Robert Bennett, had his re-election bid derailed two years ago by the fledgling tea party movement in the state GOP's nominating convention.

Hatch has shored up his support, furiously courting delegates to this year's convention on April 21. He has emphasized his seniority and covered his flank with more conservative stances and votes.

Lugar also started early, hiring a full-time campaign manager in the fall of 2010. He built an extensive network of campaign volunteers and by the first of this year had amassed a 10-1 cash advantage over his tea party challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock.

Lugar, however, has had to play a frantic defense heading into the May 8 primary after tea partyers, joined by Democrats, turned the incumbent's residency outside the state into a dominant campaign issue.

He fumbled questions about the address on his driver's license: an Indianapolis home he sold in 1977. He had to switch his voter ID to his farm in Indianapolis after the local election board ruled last month that he couldn't vote using the 1977 address. Lugar, who owns a home in Virginia, also repaid the U.S. Treasury $14,700 last month that his Senate office paid for his hotel stays in Indiana.

"That's a self-inflicted wound. It just doesn't look good symbolically," said Margaret Ferguson, who heads the political science department at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. "Things that have been brushed aside now carry some momentum that they would not have in the past."

Conservatives have rallied around Mourdock, a geologist and quiet campaigner who three years ago challenged the Chrysler bankruptcy terms in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Club For Growth, National Rifle Association, Citizens United, Hoosiers for Conservative Senate and FreedomWorks, a tea party umbrella group, have endorsed him.

The Club for Growth purchased more than $250,000 in airtime over the past two weeks for anti-Lugar ads after spending $160,000 against him last year. FreedomWorks has spent $100,000 in Indiana.

"Lugar is still in control of this race, but it's tight, much tighter than it was six months ago," said Andy Klingenstein, one of a trio of former aides who formed the Indiana Values super political action committee to battle on Lugar's behalf.

Lugar's power in Indiana Republican circles is legend, multiplied by generations of aides and operatives who cut their teeth with him in the 1960s when he was mayor of Indianapolis. He's been insulated from serious challenges within his own party and even Democrats have considered him invincible, choosing in 2006 not to field a challenger.

But a strong anti-incumbent mood and pressure from the right to define who really is a conservative have forced the well-funded Lugar to turn to super PACs like Klingenstein's, which is airing ads attacking Murdock.

Monica Boyer, one of the leaders of Hoosiers for Conservative Senate, said she, like most other Indiana tea partyers, had always voted for Lugar because "he had an `R' in front of his name."

The tipping point, she said, was when Lugar voted to confirm President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That was a "hard wake-up call," she said, that spurred tea partyers to dig deeper into Lugar's voting record. There, she said, they discovered votes for an assault weapons ban and other moderate stances that have led critics to say Lugar is Obama's "favorite Republican."

"We learned how to use the roll call system. That's probably his worst nightmare right now," Boyer said.

The tightening of the GOP race has left Democrats giddy. Pushing their own candidate, U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, they look at what once was considered a safe Senate seat for Republicans as now in play in the general election.

Hatch, who needs 60 percent of the state GOP convention delegates to win on the first ballot, appears to be faring better in Utah. Supporters have spent more than a year emphasizing the importance of his seniority as the top Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee and his influence on federal land issues and the next round of military base closings.

"I'm in a position that benefits Utah in a fantastic way," Hatch said. "This going to be my last term. I'm committed to that. But it's going to be the best six years you've seen."

That argument has played well with state GOP convention delegates, some of whom said during recent caucus meetings they feared having two first-term senators from the state. It also was underscored in an endorsement by leading Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who is extremely popular among Utah Republicans.

Dan Liljenquist, a former state senator who seems to be Hatch's strongest challenger, has tried minimize the seniority issue by highlighting the increased debt and spending on benefit programs during Hatch's tenure.

"Is seniority so important that we feel forced to make the same decisions for the same people that got us into this mess? For me, leadership trumps seniority every time. There is a time for new leadership, and that time is now," Liljenquist said.

FreedomWorks director Russ Walker said his group will continue to work for Hatch's "retirement" after spending nearly $650,000 leading up to the March caucus meetings.

But he acknowledged it isn't as easy to paint differences between Hatch and his opponents as it was in 2010, when Bennett was being hammered for supporting the Troubled Assets Relief Program and had co-sponsored a bipartisan health care overhaul.

"It's a little more challenging this cycle because everybody is saying the same things," Walker said. "We have to define the differences."

For Lugar, those differences may boil down to whether Indiana voters think he's conservative enough.

Polling shows Mourdock closing as money flows into the race from both sides. Klingenstein's pro-Lugar group plans to spend upward of $1 million on the race, and Walker said FreedomWorks plans to expand its opposition to Lugar. Another pro-Lugar super PAC, Hoosiers for Economic Growth, is raising $1.75 million in its effort.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Lugar protege who has headlined fundraisers for him in Indiana and Washington, said it's been so long since Lugar has had a competitive race that many voters don't have much of an image of him. That has hurt Lugar's efforts to defuse questions about his residency and roots in the state, according to Daniels.

"He was in nothing but tough races, until he wasn't," Daniels said. "There's probably a couple of generations of voters that don't have all the information that people did back then."

___

Associated Press writer Josh Loftin in Salt Lake City contributed to this report.

___

Arizona lawmakers are facing a backlash over a  proposal that could land people in jail for sending a nasty tweet or other  digital message – prompting efforts to change the bill already approved by both  chambers.

The so-called cyber bulling bill is being criticized  for being too broad, largely because it would prohibit a digital message that  would “annoy or offend.”

GOP state Rep. Ted Vogt, the bill’s primary sponsor,  said Thursday that state House and Senate lawmakers will meet within about a  week to attempt to improve the bill, following the storm of criticism from First  Amendment advocates and other free-speech supporters.

“The bill has been misrepresented in terms of scope  and prohibitive conduct,” he told Fox News. “It was never our intent to  interfere with broadcasters or any other public speech, but we will  clarify.”

The bill is essentially an update to a roughly  30-year-old bill that prohibits phone harassment.

“Technology has moved beyond what it was in 1973,” Vogt said. “If you cannot call somebody and threaten them, then there should be  a law to make that illegal by other means.”

Right now the bill — which passed both chambers  with bipartisan support — would result in a misdemeanor charge that carries a  maximum $2,500 fine and six months in jail for anybody who uses a computer,  smartphone or similar device to send a message to “terrify, intimidate,  threaten, harass, annoy or offend.”

The outcry began last month with critics objecting  mostly to the bill’s failure to clearly define what would be considered annoying  or offensive.

While critics expressed no objection to the bill’s  intent to prohibit cyber “stalking” and “threats of physical harm,” they said a  fine or potential jail time for “lewd” or “profane” language is  overreaching.

Vogt said the lawmakers will address three aspects  of the bill: clarify that the cyber message is targeting a specific person or  group, clarify that the communication is unwanted or unsolicited and ensure the  bill doesn’t interfere with constitutionally protected speech or other  activities protected by law.

“The trouble with the law is it could apply to a  wide range of speech, which is why we suggested some changes,” said David  Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition in New York. “Lewd language  and profanity is certainly not appropriate, but it’s not illegal. It’s  encouraging that the lawmakers are taking a second look. We’ll see what comes  out of the meeting.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/arizona-lawmakers-rethink-wide-ranging-cyber-bully-bill/#ixzz1rGnFe74a

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) has received a rare honor from the depths of space.

The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) named a supernova -- a massive exploding star more than eight times our Sun's mass and 7.4 billion light-years away -- after the senator on Thursday.

STScI also dedicated the Barbara A. Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes.

"I am proud to be the namesake of the archives at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which are the enduring legacy of Hubble and will allow us to peer even further into the origins of the universe after the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope," Mikulski, the Chairwoman of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, said in a statement.

Mikulski, Congress' longest-serving woman, is a longtime supporter of the Hubble space program -- which discovered Supernova Mikulski in January -- and also worked to secure an additional $530 million for the James Webb Space Telescope last year, The Hill reports. The Webb project is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope set to be housed at STScI's headquarters in Baltimore, Md.

"In celebration of Sen. Mikulski's career-long achievements, and particularly this year, becoming the longest-serving woman in U.S. Congressional history, we sought NASA's permission to established the Senator's permanent legacy to science by naming the optical and ultraviolet data archive housed here at the Institute in her honor," said STScI director Matt Mountain.

Click here for more on supernovae.

Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.