OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Same-sex couples in Washington state began reciting wedding vows early Sunday morning, just minutes into the first day they could marry after the state's gay marriage law took effect.

Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples picked up their marriage licenses as early as 12:01 a.m. Thursday, but because of the state's three-day waiting period, the earliest weddings could take place was just after midnight, early Sunday morning.

Some courthouses, including in King and Thurston Counties, opened right at midnight, and started marrying couples. Seattle City Hall will open for several hours on Sunday starting at 10 a.m., and several local judges are donating their time to marry couples there.

At the Thurston County Courthouse five couples were married, including Jonathon Bashford, 31, and Matthew Wiltse, 29, both of Olympia.

The couple, together for 10 years, just had a large commitment ceremony in September when they registered as domestic partners, but said they wanted to be among the first to legally marry.

"We weren't going to wait one second longer," Wiltse said.

Last month, Washington, Maine and Maryland became the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote. They joined six other states – New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont – and the District of Columbia that had already enacted laws or issued court rulings permitting same-sex marriage.

Couples in Maryland also started picking up marriage licenses Thursday, though their licenses won't take effect until Jan. 1. Maine's law takes effect on Dec. 29. There's no waiting period in Maine, and people can start marrying just after midnight.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire and Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the election results of Referendum 74 on Wednesday afternoon, and the law took effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Same-sex couples who previously were married in another state that allows gay marriage, like Massachusetts, will not have to get remarried in Washington state. Their marriages became valid here as soon as the law took effect.

The referendum had asked voters to either approve or reject the state law legalizing same-sex marriage that legislators passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gregoire in February but was put on hold pending the outcome of the election. Nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure.

The law doesn't require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages, and it doesn't subject churches to penalties if they don't marry gay or lesbian couples.

Married same-sex couples will still be denied access to federal pensions, health insurance and other government benefits available to heterosexual couples because the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal recognition of gay unions.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it will take up gay marriage sometime during the current term. Several pending cases challenge the federal benefit provision of DOMA, and a separate appeal asks the justices to decide whether federal courts were correct in striking down California's Proposition 8, the amendment that outlawed gay marriage after it had been approved by courts in the nation's largest state.

___

On Thursday, Washington became the first state to officially legalize marijuana, soon to be followed by Colorado as their new laws legalizing the drug for recreational use go into effect. A survey out Friday shows what Americans want the federal government to do about the states whose drug laws clash with national laws: Leave them alone.

Fifty-one percent of Americans in the new HuffPost/YouGov poll said that in the two states that have legalized marijuana use for adults, the federal government should exempt any adults following state laws from federal drug law enforcement. Only 30 percent said the federal government should enforce its drug laws in those states in the same way it does in any other state.

A New York Times report has cast doubt on whether the two states will be able to put their new laws into effect unencumbered by the federal government, suggesting the Obama administration may pursue legal action to block the two states' laws, which contradict federal laws that make marijuana use illegal. The new HuffPost/YouGov poll suggests this would be an unpopular move by the federal government, although the survey asked about enforcement of drug laws against individuals, rather than action to block the state laws.

Exemptions for users and dispensaries in the states that permit medical marijuana were even more popular than the idea of states permitting recreational use. Fifty-eight percent of respondents favored exemptions from federal drug laws in those cases, and only 23 percent said they were opposed. Medical marijuana exemptions were popular even among some groups that did not favor exemptions for the two recreational marijuana states. For example, 40 percent of Americans age 65 and up opposed exemptions for adults using marijuana in the two states where it is legal compared to 35 percent who supported the exemptions. But of that same age group, 49 percent favored exempting medical marijuana patients and dispensaries, compared to 30 percent who opposed it. Republicans in the survey rejected exemptions for either recreational or medical marijuana, but were more split on an exemption for medical use: By only a 43 percent to 39 percent margin, they said the federal government should enforce its laws in medical marijuana states the same as it would in other states.

Recent polls have shown support for legalizing marijuana nationwide is growing: A CBS News poll released Wednesday found a majority of Americans supporting pot legalization, while a previous HuffPost/YouGov poll found even higher support for legalization if given the option to say marijuana should be "taxed and regulated like alcohol."

The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted Dec. 5-6 among 1,000 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points, though that inherent variation does not take into account other potential sources of error, including statistical bias in the sample. The poll used a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church.

By Alina Selyukh and Alexander Cohen

WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - Mitt Romney's presidential campaign had $25.7 million left in the bank days after the Nov. 6 election that ended months of relentless fundraising in the most expensive race in U.S. history, new campaign finance disclosures showed on Thursday.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat, defeated the Republican candidate following a campaign that cost more than $2 billion overall.

Obama's re-election effort had $14.2 million left as of Nov. 26, according to the Federal Election Commission disclosures.

Leftover campaign cash is common and often goes to the national party or other candidates.

The Romney campaign on Thursday said every raised dollar had gone toward Romney's run and that it "continues to process invoices for pre-election expenses." It expected to have less than $1 million by the end of the year.

"It is not uncommon. It is of course a great risk," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics that tracks campaign finance. "As a loser you want to make sure you've given it your all."

Obama and Romney both spent much of their campaign cash on voter outreach and especially advertising. But the Democrat and his "Super PAC" backers at Priorities USA Action, an unlimited-spending group, held an early advertising game advantage.

Obama's campaign dominated the airwaves, booking the increasingly expensive spots earlier and at the lowest price.

The "super" political action committee, which was legally barred from coordinating with the campaign, ran a series of aggressive ads about Romney's private equity past that portrayed him as a corporate raider.

The damaging ads, as well as negative press surrounding Romney's disparaging "47 percent" comment about Americans relying on government funds, contributed to the candidate's defeat.

The pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future - boosted once again by this year's Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson - plowed $45.5 million into a last-ditch effort to sway voters, according to Thursday's filings.

But according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans had made up their minds in the presidential race before Obama and Romney faced off in the first debate on Oct. 3.

The pro-Obama group spent $20.9 million from Oct. 18 and had $4.3 million in cash on hand as of Nov. 26, according to the FEC filings. Romney's Restore Our Future reported having $842,062 left.

Adelson, billionaire chief executive of Las Vegas Sands , and his wife Miriam contributed another $10 million to Restore Our Future, accounting for nearly half of all the group's last-minute fundraising and bringing the couple's total gift to the Super PAC to $30 million.

Adelson's total donations to Republican candidates and organizations, although not all of them are disclosed, are said to have topped $100 million this election cycle. He planned to spend "that much and more" in the next campaign, he told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.

The pro-Obama Super PAC received 11th-hour $1 million infusions from two of its own top donors, media mogul Fred Eychaner and Houston lawyer Steve Mostyn. They brought Eychaner's total to $4.5 million, and Mostyn's to $3 million, according to FEC filings. (Editing by Xavier Briand)

David Kirkpatrick, NYT
CAIRO — Egypt descended deeper into political turmoil on Thursday as the embattled president, Mohamed Morsi, blamed an outbreak of violence on a “fifth column” and vowed to proceed with a referendum on an Islamist-backed constitution that has prompted deadly street battles between his supporters and their opponents. Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines. Twitter List: Reporters and EditorsEgyptian soldiers put up barbed-wire fences near the presidential palace on Thursday in Cairo. As the tanks and...

WASHINGTON -- Campaign finance filings with the government now show that the cost of the 2012 U.S. presidential race has surpassed $2 billion, a new record.

The new tallies released Thursday, which include nearly $86 million in fundraising by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in the election's final weeks, boosted the total campaign haul over the $2 billion mark.

The campaign's record-breaking expenditures on media ads were fueled by eye-popping amounts donated to "super" political action committees, including at least $95 million supporting Romney and other Republicans that came from a billionaire Las Vegas casino magnate.

Casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife gave $23 million to a super PAC headed by GOP strategist Karl Rove and $10 million to a pro-Romney political committee in recent weeks.

WASHINGTON -- A move to embarrass Democrats backfired on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Thursday as the Kentucky Republican proposed a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling -- then filibustered it when the Democrats tried to take him up on the offer.

On Thursday morning McConnell had made a motion for the vote on legislation that would let the president extend the country's borrowing limit on his own. Congress would then have the option to disapprove such hikes, in a fashion similar to one that McConnell first suggested during last year's standoff over the debt ceiling.

The minority leader apparently did not think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would take him up on his offer, which would have allowed McConnell to portray President Barack Obama's desire for such authority as something even Democrats opposed.

Reid objected at first, but told McConnell he thought it might be a good idea. After Senate staff reviewed the proposal, Reid came back to the floor and proposed a straight up-or-down vote on the idea.

McConnell was forced to say no.

"What we're talking about here is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to the president, " McConnell said. "Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes."

Sixty votes are required to end a filibuster during debate on a bill and hold a vote.

Democrats immediately seized on McConnell's reversal, noting it was the sort of obstruction that they think warrants changes to the rules on filibusters.

"What we have here is a case of the Republicans here in the Senate once again not taking yes for an answer," Reid said. "This morning the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on his proposal. Just now I told everyone we're willing to have that vote, an up-or-down vote, and now the Republican leader objects to his own idea, so I guess we have a filibuser of his own bill."

Democrats piled on.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters that McConnell thought he'd thrown Democrats for a loop. "It was a little too clever by half," Schumer said, adding that it "would have been a great moment."

"Sen. McConnell's usually astute political radar was a bit off today," Schumer said.

"This may be a moment in Senate history when a senator made a proposal and, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "I think we have reached a new spot in the history of the Senate we've never seen before."

Democrats did, however, take up a previous offer by McConnell on a vote that he seemed to think would fail, which he then declined to filibuster. In July the Senate voted to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 98 percent of earners, but not for the richest 2 percent.

The passage of the bill has put significant pressure on Republicans in the House, who are opposed to letting any of the tax cuts expire.

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Organizers of a U.N. conference on global telecommunications said Thursday that hackers apparently blocked their website and disrupted the talks, a gathering some critics fear could lead to greater controls over the Internet.

The U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union said the website was hit late Wednesday, blocking access to its main page and interfering with a closed-door working group. It says it is still investigating but initial signs point to hackers.

The statement says Internet traffic was diverted to a backup website for two hours before normal operations resumed. Officials at the conference, which brings together nearly 2,000 delegates from 193 nations, say the incident underscores the need for better cyber-security coordination.

The 11-day gathering in Dubai is also being closely watched for the possibility that new international pacts on Internet commerce and security emerge from it.

The U.S. is leading efforts to block new Internet regulations, fearing they could open the door to greater monitoring and restrictions.

The head of the U.S. delegation, Ambassador Terry Kramer, told reporters that he supports efforts to expand Internet services to developing countries, but will stand against any possible rules that could allow more government oversight or surveillance of the Net.

The U.N. group is seeking to update its treaty on global telecommunications for the first time since 1988, well before the Internet age. The conference also is expected to look at mobile phone roaming charges and agreements over land-line services.

SEATTLE — The crowds of happy people lighting joints under Seattle's Space Needle early Thursday morning with nary a police officer in sight bespoke the new reality: Marijuana is legal under Washington state law.

Hundreds gathered at Seattle Center for a New Year's Eve-style countdown to 12 a.m., when the legalization measure passed by voters last month took effect. When the clock struck, they cheered and sparked up in unison.

A few dozen people gathered on a sidewalk outside the north Seattle headquarters of the annual Hempfest celebration and did the same, offering joints to reporters and blowing smoke into television news cameras.

"I feel like a kid in a candy store!" shouted Hempfest volunteer Darby Hageman. "It's all becoming real now!"

Washington and Colorado became the first states to vote to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21. Both measures call for setting up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores. Colorado's law is set to take effect by Jan. 5.

Technically, Washington's new marijuana law still forbids smoking pot in public, which remains punishable by a fine, like drinking in public. But pot fans wanted a party, and Seattle police weren't about to write them any tickets.

In another sweeping change for Washington, Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday signed into law a measure that legalizes same-sex marriage. The state joins several others that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The mood was festive in Seattle as dozens of gay and lesbian couples got in line to pick up marriage licenses at the King County auditor's office early Thursday.

King County and Thurston County announced they would open their auditors' offices shortly after midnight Wednesday to accommodate those who wanted to be among the first to get their licenses.

Kelly Middleton and her partner Amanda Dollente got in line at 4 p.m. Wednesday.

Hours later, as the line grew, volunteers distributed roses and a group of men and women serenaded the waiting line to the tune of "Going to the Chapel."

Because the state has a three-day waiting period, the earliest that weddings can take place is Sunday.

In dealing with marijuana, the Seattle Police Department told its 1,300 officers on Wednesday, just before legalization took hold, that until further notice they shall not issue citations for public marijuana use.

Officers will be advising people not to smoke in public, police spokesman Jonah Spangenthal-Lee wrote on the SPD Blotter. "The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a `Lord of the Rings' marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to."

He offered a catchy new directive referring to the film "The Big Lebowski," popular with many marijuana fans: "The Dude abides, and says `take it inside!'"

"This is a big day because all our lives we've been living under the iron curtain of prohibition," said Hempfest director Vivian McPeak. "The whole world sees that prohibition just took a body blow."

Washington's new law decriminalizes possession of up to an ounce for those over 21, but for now selling marijuana remains illegal. I-502 gives the state a year to come up with a system of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores, with the marijuana taxed 25 percent at each stage. Analysts have estimated that a legal pot market could bring Washington hundreds of millions of dollars a year in new tax revenue for schools, health care and basic government functions.

But marijuana remains illegal under federal law. That means federal agents can still arrest people for it, and it's banned from federal properties, including military bases and national parks.

The Justice Department has not said whether it will sue to try to block the regulatory schemes in Washington and Colorado from taking effect.

"The department's responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," said a statement issued Wednesday by the Seattle U.S. attorney's office. "Neither states nor the executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress" – a non-issue, since the measures passed in Washington and Colorado don't "nullify" federal law, which federal agents remain free to enforce.

The legal question is whether the establishment of a regulated marijuana market would "frustrate the purpose" of the federal pot prohibition, and many constitutional law scholars say it very likely would.

That leaves the political question of whether the administration wants to try to block the regulatory system, even though it would remain legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.

Alison Holcomb is the drug policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and served as the campaign manager for New Approach Washington, which led the legalization drive. She said the voters clearly showed they're done with marijuana prohibition.

"New Approach Washington sponsors and the ACLU look forward to working with state and federal officials and to ensure the law is fully and fairly implemented," she said.

___

Johnson can be reached at . https://twitter.com/GeneAPseattle

___(equals)

Johnson can be reached at https://twitter.com/GeneAPseattle

* Outdoor celebration planned at Seattle's Space Needle

* Users must light up in private or face citations by police

By Laura L. Myers

SEATTLE, Dec 5 (Reuters) - With Washington state poised to become the first in the nation legalizing marijuana possession for adult recreational use, Seattle's city attorney issued a stern warning on Wednesday to those waiting to celebrate - no pot puffing in public.

The West Coast state's liberal marijuana law, passed by voters last month, takes effect on Thursday, removing criminal sanctions for anyone 21 or older possessing 1 ounce (28.5 grams) or less of pot. It also legalizes possession of up to 16 ounces (0.45 kg) of solid marijuana-infused goods - like brownies - and up to 72 ounces (2.4 kg) of weed in liquid form.

Prosecutors in several counties announced last month they were dismissing scores of misdemeanor marijuana possession cases following voter passage of Washington's landmark statute, known as Initiative 502.

But lighting up a joint in public places, where the consumption of alcohol already is banned, will remain illegal.

"If you're smoking in plain public view, you're subject to a ticket," Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said during a news conference on the implications of the new law, at the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington state office.

"Initiative 502 uses the alcohol model. If drinking in public is disallowed, so is smoking marijuana in public," Holmes said.

The warning seemed aimed, at least in part, at outdoor celebrations by marijuana advocates planned for midnight on Wednesday and on Thursday evening near Seattle's famed Space Needle tower. Organizers of Thursday's event said they expected a crowd of at least 500 to attend.

Police could ticket public marijuana smokers for infractions that carry fines of about $100, similar to penalties for a traffic citation, Holmes said.

A separate group of about 40 pot enthusiasts planned to gather at midnight on Wednesday, as the law takes effect, outside the office of Seattle Hempfest, an annual three-day "protestival" celebrating marijuana and hemp products that attracted 80,000 attendees in August.

"This is a very big step in a culture that's been pushed under the rug for a very long time," staffer Darby Hageman told Reuters. "It's now the lowest law-enforcement priority, and we plan to celebrate."


STILL A FEDERAL CRIME

Public celebrations also would directly defy federal law, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan in Seattle reiterated the U.S. Justice Department position that growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remained a federal crime, regardless of any changes in state law.

Colorado voters approved their own ballot measure in November similar to Washington's, although it goes further by allowing individuals to grow small amounts for themselves. The effective date for Colorado's law is Jan. 5. Both states are among 18 that already have removed criminal sanctions for medical use of marijuana.

In addition to making it lawful to possess small amounts of pot for recreational purposes, the new laws in Washington and Colorado will permit cannabis to be legally sold and taxed at state-licensed stores in a system modeled after those many states have in place for alcohol sales.

In Washington, the state Liquor Control Board, along with agriculture and public health officials, have until Dec. 1, 2013, to set up such a system.

In the meantime, individuals are permitted to purchase small amounts legalized under the law for personal possession, although cultivation or selling is still outlawed, as is sharing one's personal stash with another individual.

Initiative 502 also set a new standard for marijuana impairment while driving, similar to the blood-alcohol standard for drunken driving, and those provisions will be enforced starting on Thursday. (Editing by Steve Gorman and Peter Cooney)

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Sunday that Republicans are nowhere near reaching a deal with the White House to avoid going over the "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year.

"Right now, I would say we're nowhere, period. We're nowhere," he told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

Boehner said he was shocked by what he called the "nonserious" budget proposal Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented him on Thursday, which calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and $80 billion in new spending. “I was just flabbergasted,” he said. “I looked at him and I said, 'You can't be serious.' I've just never seen anything like it. You know, we've got several weeks between Election Day and the end of the year, and three of those weeks have been wasted with this nonsense.”

The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and automatic spending cuts that are set to go into effect early next year could be devastating for the economy and potentially spark another recession. The Obama administration is proposing to avoid that cliff by extending unemployment benefits and middle class tax cuts, setting tax rates for the wealthiest Americans back up to Clinton-era levels, investing in infrastructure and end the Afghanistan war in order to stimulate the economy and balancing the budget. Republicans have scoffed at President Barack Obama's plan, arguing that it spends more than it saves. But Republicans so far have not put forth any specifics about which spending cuts they would make to balance the budget.

"The ball really is with them now," Geithner told Wallace on Sunday. "They're in a hard place. And they're having a tough time trying to figure out what they can do, what they can get support from their members for. That's understandable. This is very difficult for them. And we might need to give them a little more time to figure out where they go next."

Boehner said there are specific tax loopholes that he would like to eliminate for the wealthy instead of raising taxes on them. But when Wallace asked him repeatedly for specifics, Boehner avoided answering the question. "Listen, there are a lot of options in terms of how to get there," he said. "I'm not going to debate this or negotiate this with you. But if you could sign the bill into law, I'd be happy to."

Boehner said when he saw the election results in November, he conceded that he and the Republicans would have to be willing to allow some tax increases for wealthy Americans in conjunction with deep spending cuts on entitlement programs. But the president, he said, is being a bully on cliff negotiations. "I think when they won the election, they must have forgotten that Republicans continue to hold a majority in the House," he said. "The president's idea of a negotiation is 'roll over and do what I ask.'"

Both Geithner and Boehner said on Sunday that the possibility of going over the fiscal cliff is very real, but that the ball is in the other party's hands.

Huey-Burns & McPike, RealClearPolitics
Democratic and Republican leaders have needled each other this week to make the first move in the staring match over how to avert the looming fiscal cliff. On Thursday, the White House finally jumped, offering a broad, recycled plan for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, additional stimulus spending and a request to permanently raise the government's debt borrowing limit.In exchange, the president offered $400 billion in Medicare savings over a decade, similar to his previous proposal. Republicans rejected the deal, striking a discontented tone that echoed across Capitol Hill."This...

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer drew a curious comparison on Fox News Thursday evening between Washington's fiscal cliff standoff and the Civil War.

During a panel appearance on "Special Report" with Bret Baier, Krauthammer compared the White House's opening proposal in the fiscal cliff negotiations to the surrender terms offered General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House to conclude the Civil War.

Said Krauthammer:

It's not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal... Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that's what the administration is asking of Republicans.

There not only are no cuts in this, there's an increase in new spending with a stimulus - this is almost unheard of. I mean, what do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think Republican ought to simply walk away.

The actual offer, as explained by the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim, is as follows:

The proposal is based on a two-step plan that would decouple the high-end tax and capital gains rates from the middle-class rates, extending only those for the middle class. It would revert estate taxes to their higher 2009 level, and raise an additional $600 billion in taxes elsewhere, according to the GOP summary. It then proposes tax reform required to raise at least as much as the tax hikes, and entitlement reform that would trim $400 billion from the programs.

Members of Congress and the White House are currently engaged in the first stages of negotiations to avoid a combination of tax increases and spending cuts -- the former through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the latter as mandated by last summer's debt ceiling deal -- that would take effect at the end of 2012.

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner joined fellow Republicans in the Senate on Thursday in their battle to stop Democrats controlling that chamber from curbing filibusters, threatening to ignore bills the Senate sends him if Democrats have abused GOP senators' rights to slow consideration of legislation.

The threat by Boehner, R-Ohio, represents an unusual escalation across the Capitol building of a bitter partisan fight that has been brewing in the Senate for weeks. It also underscores a Republican effort to retain as much power as they can next year, when Democrats will control the White House and Senate and Republicans will lead only the House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said that on the first day of the new Congress in January, he may take the unusual step of using a simple majority vote to limit filibusters.

Usually it takes a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules. A simple majority would mean Democrats could change the filibuster rules without GOP support, and the threat has infuriated Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans. Democrats will control the new Senate 55-45, including one Democratic-leaning independent.

Boehner said that Reid's threat "is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial, partisan measures."

He added, "Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats' heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival."

Though the rules change would not occur until next year, Boehner suggested that it might poison the atmosphere even sooner, "at a time when cooperation on Capitol Hill is critical."

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders of both parties are currently bargaining over deficit-cutting measures that would avoid the so-called fiscal cliff of big tax increases and deep spending cuts scheduled to begin in January unless lawmakers find a way to avert them.

Minority parties in the Senate use filibusters – parliamentary delays – to slow or kill legislation. They can only be ended by 60 votes – a margin neither party can achieve without some cooperation from the other side.

Democrats say Republicans are abusing filibusters by resorting to them too frequently, and statistics show minority Republicans have increasingly used the tactic in recent years. Reid's plan would forbid the use of filibusters when a bill is initially being brought to the Senate floor for debate and require filibustering senators to actually be on the Senate floor, a long-abandoned practice.

"It is a shame to see Speaker Boehner join Sen. McConnell's desperate attempt to double down in the status quo of Republican-led gridlock in Washington," said Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson.

Republicans say they have used filibusters more because Reid blocks them from presenting amendments. Reid, in turn, says Republicans use too much time pushing amendments that make political statements or that are designed to derail bills.

The battle has prompted numerous sharp exchanges on the Senate floor in recent days between Reid and McConnell.

Neither side has ruled out negotiating a solution to the dispute.

To President Obama:

The millions of Americans who voted for you will likely sit down on Thursday and give thanks that you will be our nation's leader for the next four years. Our thanks will be added to you and your family's thanks for the same thing, I assume. We all sincerely hope you and your loved ones have a very happy Thanksgiving this year.

You will enter your second term as president with a full four years of on-the-job experience, and this too should be something America can be thankful for. If, that is, you have learned some of the lessons from your first term and make a sincere effort to change what needs to be changed in your second.

There are hopeful signs that this may indeed already be happening. The biggest lesson you should have learned from your dealings with Congress over the past four years is to not start negotiating from your compromise position. This is "Negotiation 101" -- any Union leader in the country knows this basic rule for how the negotiating game is played. If you want a trillion dollars, start by asking for three trillion dollars. Allow the other side to "talk you down" to one trillion dollars. That way you not only get what you want, you allow the other side to "save face" and claim they've gotten the better of you in the deal (since they can claim to their followers "we got Obama to cave on two trillion dollars that he wanted!"). This is basic, basic stuff but it was also the source of real weakness in your first term.

Democrats (and most Americans) know that politics requires compromise to get much of anything done -- even in normal times. So while the vocal Left will decry your compromises at times, deep down they know that even incremental progress towards a goal is much better than anything they could have expected out of President (shudder) Romney.

But also, at times, you need to stand firm. Draw a few lines in the sand. Refuse to give in. Not every time, of course, but if you pick your battles and choose issues that the American public is overwhelmingly on your side, you can win these battles even against recalcitrant Republicans. And even if you lose, they'll wind up paying the political price for obstructing you.

The first of these fights will be over ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail for "closing loopholes" rather than raising the tax rates. This should be your first line in the sand. The American people elected you to raise rates -- you certainly campaigned on it clearly enough. Over sixty percent of the public stands behind you on this issue, and some polls put support for raising rates as high as three-fourths of all Americans. You've already issued a veto threat, so now all you need to do is stand firm. Either the House Republicans can go along with this, or you can just force the issue by vetoing any bill which falls short. But don't back down, or else it will never again be possible for Democrats to raise any taxes for any reason, for the rest of your term. If you back down, you will have done the equivalent of agreeing to Grover Norquist's pledge. This would be a weak way to start your second term indeed.

If Republicans dig in their heels, then use the bully pulpit. One of your biggest weaknesses during the first half of your first term was your inexplicable refusal to do what Ronald Reagan used to call "going over the heads" of those in Washington and the media, and "speaking directly to the American people." You can do this, too. To great effect. Getting the public firmly behind you is crucial to getting Congress to do much of anything.

In your first term, you dropped the ball on using your online bully pulpit as well. The impressive legion of supporters you had built up for your campaign never heard a call to arms (or to the phones, more accurately) on any important issue, after you were elected. Instead, your email list gathered cobwebs, before you dusted it off again in 2012 to gin up campaign contributions. Don't make this mistake again. Again, there are signs that you plan to ask your online supporters for feedback, but even these signs are a bit disturbing, such as requiring day, month, and year of birth to even complete the survey. This isn't exactly "anonymous" feedback, and anyone even slightly concerned with the use of personal data online will not even make it past the first screen. Do you really want our feedback, or are you just data mining your supporters? Please send a clearer message in the future.

Which brings up one other tiny point. When dealing with the vocal Left, please don't allow Rahm Emanuel within 500 miles of the White House. Repeatedly (and graphically) insulting what should have been your strongest supporters was just politically stupid (note: I refuse to use the same term Rahm used about the Left, no matter how appropriate it would be right here).

Finally, allow me to close with a broad suggestion. When you and Congress have a contentious issue that absolutely must be resolved, please show some leadership. Again, you've been doing a much better job of this since your first few years, but it will be crucial with Republicans being able to block legislation in both houses. Don't allow some obscure Senate committee to yammer for months on end over an issue, because you and I both know what the outcome will be -- absolutely nothing, other than a lot of hot air released into the Washington atmosphere.

If you have to compromise, then compromise. If you have to twist arms, then twist arms. But, either way, don't just sit on the sidelines and assume Congress will get it done. They won't. Harry Reid just isn't strong enough (and doesn't have enough leverage) to get it done on his own. The White House has to take the reins -- early -- and drive the negotiating process. This doesn't mean you'll win on every issue, and it certainly doesn't mean we expect you to get everything you want while blocking every Republican idea, but you have to be seen as leading the talks on how to solve problems, even if you fail. The American public will give you a lot more credit if you fail -- but fought as hard as you could to reach an agreement -- than they will if you don't even try.

I don't mean to sound too harsh, Mister President. As I said, there are millions of Americans who are going to start off their Thanksgiving statements with "I am thankful Barack Obama will be our president for four more years..." this Thursday. Because we are looking forward (and, yes, we even have lots of hope) that in the coming years we can sit down and begin with "I am thankful Barack Obama was our president this year because he accomplished the following..." before we feast on turkey with all the trimmings.

Happy Thanksgiving To All!

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is defending the court's 2010 decision in the Citizens United case that helped fuel hundreds of millions of dollars of spending by independent groups in the just-concluded campaign season.

Alito told roughly 1,500 people at a Federalist Society dinner this week that the First Amendment protects political speech, whether from an individual or a corporation. His comments to the overwhelmingly conservative and Republican crowd were part of his broader analysis of arguments put forth by the Obama administration in recent years that Alito said would curtail individual freedoms in favor of stronger federal power.

He said opponents of the 5-4 decision have conducted an effective, but misleading, public relations campaign by stressing that the court extended free speech rights to corporations.

He even praised opponents' pithy cleverness, noting such bumper stickers as "Life Does Not Begin at Incorporation."

But Alito rattled off the names of the nation's leading newspapers and television networks, all owned by corporations and possessing acknowledged rights to print and say what they wish about politics and government.

"The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations," he said. "Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech."

It was not the first time Alito has taken on critics of the outcome in the Citizens United case. At President Barack Obama's State of the Union address soon after the court's ruling in January 2010, the president said the court "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

Alito, sitting with five other justices, was seen to mouth, "Not true."

The justice in his speech Thursday also briefly dealt with high court cases involving religion, private property, surveillance, immigration and health care. In the latter case, of course, Alito was among four justices who dissented from the ruling that upheld Obama's health care overhaul.

But he noted that, even in the health care ruling, the court rejected administration arguments in favor of congressional power at the expense of the states and individuals.

Taken together, Alito said, the views put forth by the government begin to suggest a vision of society "in which the federal government towers over people." He noted that in several cases, not a single justice endorsed the administration's arguments.

He also humorously recounted his experience at Yale Law School in the early 1970s when he was a student of constitutional law professor Charles Reich, who by then was more interested in American counterculture than the law.

He quoted from Reich's bestselling "The Greening of America," in which the author painted a frightening picture of a disintegrating society and called the era a "moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril."

Here, Alito paused and, to the delight of a crowd dismayed by Obama's re-election, added, "So our current situation is nothing new."

___

Conservative justices routinely speak at Federalist Society gatherings, including the yearly fall meeting in Washington.

Thursday's black-tie dinner at a Washington hotel cost $175 a plate, or for $550 a participant could attend the dinner and three days of speeches and panel discussions featuring a host of federal judges, conservative and liberal legal scholars and leading Supreme Court lawyers.

Some critics have said the justices are crossing an ethical line when they allow their names to be used by the group to help sell tickets to the event. Alliance for Justice, a not-for-profit group that advocates for liberal court nominees, said Alito showed "insensitivity to the need for a justice's ethical behavior to be above reproach" by doing just that.

Ethics guidelines for federal judges other than Supreme Court justices say judges should steer clear of fundraising efforts and not allow the prestige of their office to be used to drum up ticket sales.

Federalist Society president and chief executive officer Eugene Meyer said the critics have their facts wrong.

"This annual event is not a fundraiser. We have not hoped to raise funds from it, and, in fact, we lose a little money on every meal we serve," Meyer said.

___

While Alito was talking about the counterculture, other justices were dipping into pop culture.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor made her second appearance on "Sesame Street," joining muppet Abby Cadabby to talk about the word "career."

Abby, the 3-year-old daughter of the Fairy Godmother, said she hoped to be a princess.

"Pretending to be a princess is fun, but it is definitely not a career," Sotomayor said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found herself in an unusual place for high court justices, among Glamour magazine's Women of the Year. "The judiciary is not a profession that ranks very high among the glamorously attired," she told the audience as the magazine honored the women at Carnegie Hall in New York. Ginsburg also noted that she might have been the second woman to join the high court after Sandra Day O'Connor, but she was the first honored by Glamour.

Among the other honorees was Lena Dunham, creator of the HBO hit series "Girls." As it happens, Dunham made another annual list that also included a Supreme Court justice.

Dunham and Chief Justice John Roberts (an unlikely pair, no?) are members of Esquire magazine's 2012 roster of Americans of the Year.

Roberts was recognized for his vote to uphold the health care law. The magazine said the outcome allowed Roberts to "preserve the court's institutional integrity" by joining with the four liberal justices and avoiding a wholly partisan and ideological split.

After weeks of requests and political back and forth, the Obama administration on Thursday shared with Congress video evidence, debriefings, and photographs collected from the evening of the Sept. 11 assault on the diplomatic mission and CIA base at Benghazi, Libya.

Governors on the fence or opposed to implementing a crucial element of President Barack Obama's health care reform law now have more time to make a decision following a Thursday announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Republican Governors Association had demanded an extension of Friday's deadline for states to declare whether they will set up health insurance exchanges -- online marketplaces where the uninsured can shop for coverage and learn about eligibility for financial assistance or Medicaid benefits starting in 2014. On Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius penned a letter pushing back the deadline to Dec. 14.

"We are confident governors will have enough time to decide whether they want to establish an exchange, work in partnership with the federal government or have a federally facilitated exchange in their state. We look forward to working with governors as we continue to implement the law," Sebelius wrote in a letter addressed to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who contacted her Wednesday on behalf of GOP governors.

In the hours before Sebelius moved back the date, more Republican-led states had announced or restated that they would opt out of the key component of Obama's health care reform law.

The health care law calls on states to create their own exchanges but allows the federal government to step in for states that aren't ready or refuse to do so. On Thursday, Republican governors in Alaska, Indiana, Nebraska, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina said they will not set up exchanges, joining at least 20 states where the federal government will have to do all or most of the work. Fewer than 20 states are projected to have their own exchanges by Oct. 1, 2013, when they go online for uninsured people to shop for coverage for 2014, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Republicans have opposed Obamacare from the start and many states delayed making a decision on the exchanges as challenges to the law played out, including numerous repeal attempts in the House, an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court, and promises by recently defeated Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that he would repeal it if elected.

Even though it means allowing the federal government to play a greater role in their local health care markets, more holdouts are punting on health insurance exchanges than setting them up.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) summed up the tension in comments made Thursday. "Like many Nebraskans, my initial thoughts were we would prefer a state exchange because Nebraska would be in control of the exchange," he said, according to a prepared statement. But Heineman ultimately came to a different conclusion: "A state exchange is nothing more than the state administering the Affordable Care Act with all of the important and critical decisions made by the federal government," he said, also citing the expense of managing an exchange.

Most states either had begun the work of creating an exchange, like California, or rejected the idea well in advance of the now-delayed Friday deadline, like Texas.

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R), Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence (R), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) also said their states would not run exchanges. North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue (D) decided against a state-run exchange to give Governor-elect Mary McCrory (R) an opportunity to negotiate on the issue with state legislators, according to the Charlotte Observer.

By contrast, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) reiterated that her state would go ahead with its plans to create a health insurance exchange.

A handful of states have yet to officially or unofficially declare whether they would create an exchange, including Arizona, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

READ THE LETTER FROM HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS:

Andrew Ross, SF Chronicle
Robert Lapsley is a worried man.For one thing, he warned a group of business leaders in San Francisco Thursday, you'd better start meeting with your tax advisers right away. That's because - if you didn't already know - those tax increases on the wealthy passed by state voters this week are retroactive, meaning some people will be coughing up more taxes on income earned this year.Add to that the possible end of the federal Bush-era tax cuts, and the elimination or cutting back of other tax breaks and loopholes, and the money starts to seriously add up.

WASHINGTON -- In an interview with ABC News on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that the president's Affordable Care Act was now the "law of the land."

The comments were immediately trumpeted as a turning point in the year-long debate surrounding the president's signature law, which has long been the target of repeal among House Republicans. But in a clarifying statement to The Huffington Post shortly after the first excerpts of the interview aired, Boehner's office made it clear that he still favored changing the legislation, if not eliminating it entirely.

“While Obamacare is the law of the land, it is costing us jobs and threatening our health care," said Boehner's spokesman Kevin Smith. "Speaker Boehner and House Republicans remain committed to repealing the law, and he said in the interview it would be on the table.”

The full transcript of the ABC interview, as provided by Smith, makes it clear that Boehner never really embraced the Affordable Care Act as a fait accompli following the 2012 elections.

DIANE SAWYER: A couple of other questions about the agenda now. You have said next year that you would repeal the health care vote. That's still your mission?

JOHN BOEHNER: Well, I think the election changes that. It's pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare -- is the law of the land. I think there are parts -- of -- the healthcare law that -- are going to be very difficult to implement. And very expensive. And as -- the time when we're trying to find a way to create a path -- toward a balanced budget -- everything has to be on the table.

DIANE SAWYER: But you won't be spending the time next year trying to repeal Obamacare?

JOHN BOEHNER: There certainly may be parts of it that we believe -- need to be changed. We may do that. No decisions at this point.

The first ABC News excerpt only had Boehner saying that there were some parts of the Affordable Care Act that could be targeted in the context of debt-reduction negotiations.

Still, the rhetoric seems softened a bit. House Republicans, after all, have attempted to take down Obama’s health care law 33 times. Their last vote to repeal Obamacare came just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling to uphold the law in June and, according to a report, put the GOP repeal efforts at a total cost of $50 million.

Eddie Vale, a spokesperson for the pro-health care reform group Protect Your Care, called Boehner's initially-reported remarks "welcome news" but stressed that Republicans should stop trying to repeal any of the law's elements.

"It’s welcome news that Boehner has finally gotten the message and will stop having the House waste time trying to repeal Obamacare,” Vale told The Huffington Post. “But, if they want to fully accept reality, they also need to stop trying to repeal or defund any of its elements, including in the fiscal cliff negotiations."

On his Twitter account on Friday, Boehner reiterated that he does not support the legislation. "Our goal remains #fullrepeal," he wrote.

JACQUES BILLEAUD, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TUCSON, Ariz. -- Gabrielle Giffords came face to face Thursday with the man who tried to kill her last year, but chose not to speak.

Her astronaut husband, Mark Kelly, did all the talking for her, as the couple told Jared Lee Loughner how the 24-year-old's deadly rampage at the former congresswoman's political meeting had upended her life.

"Her life has been forever changed. Plans she had for our family and her career have been immeasurably altered," Kelly said at Loughner's sentencing. "Every day is a continuous stuggle to do those things she once was so good at."

Loughner showed no emotion, and looked at the other victims. His mother sobbed nearby.

"Mr. Loughner, you may have put a bullet through her head but you haven't put a dent in her spirit and her commitment to make the world a better place," Kelly said.

Giffords kissed Kelly when he was done. He grabbed her hand and they walked away, with her limping.

Earlier, Loughner told U.S. District Judge Larry Burns that he will not be speaking at the hearing where he is expected to be sentenced to life in prison.

Loughner pleaded guilty three months ago to 19 federal charges under an agreement that guarantees he will spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. The deal calls for the dismissal of 30 other charges and a sentence of seven consecutive life terms, followed by 140 years in prison.

Both sides reached the deal after a judge declared that Loughner was able to understand the charges against him. After the shooting, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and underwent forcible psychotropic drug treatments.

At the hearing, Loughner, who wore dress pants and a dark brown shirt with a tie, heard from his victims.

"We've been told about your demons, about the illness that skewed your thinking," said Susan Hileman, at times visibly shaking, to Loughner. "Your parents, your schools, your community, they all failed you.

"It's all true," Hileman said. "It's not enough."

"You pointed a weapon and shot me three times," she said, staring directly at Loughner. He looked back at her. "And now I walked out of this courtroom and into the rest of my life and I won't think of you again."

Some victims, including Giffords, welcomed the plea deal as a way to move on. It spared victims and their families from having to go through a potentially lengthy and traumatic trial and locks up the defendant for life.

Christina Pietz, the court-appointed psychologist who treated Loughner, had warned that although Loughner was competent to plead guilty, he remained severely mentally ill and his condition could deteriorate under the stress of a trial.

When Loughner first arrived at a Missouri prison facility for treatment, he was convinced Giffords was dead, even though he was shown a video of the shooting. He eventually realized she was alive after he was forcibly medicated.

It's unknown whether Pima County prosecutors, who have discretion on whether to seek the death penalty against Loughner, will file state charges against him. Stephanie Coronado, a spokeswoman for Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, said Wednesday that no decision had been made.

It's unclear where Loughner will be sent to serve his federal sentence. He could return to a prison medical facility like the one in Springfield, Mo., where he's been treated for more than a year. Or he could end up in a prison such as the federal lockup in Florence, Colo., that houses some of the country's most notorious criminals, including Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski.

Ron Brownstein, National Jrnl
Question? Call us at 800-207-8001 | Sign In | Learn About MembershipBy Ronald Brownstein President Barack Obama speaks at the University of Miami Field House in Coral Gables, Fla., Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012. In the campaign's final days, President Obama's hopes of reelection may turn on his ability to assemble very different coalitions of support in the Sunbelt and the Rustbelt, a wave of new battleground state polling this week suggests.In diverse Sunbelt states like Virginia, Florida and Colorado, Obama is drawing enough backing from minorities and upscale white women to...

BOSTON -- Republican Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren ramped up their voter outreach efforts Thursday as new campaign fundraising reports show they've already spent nearly $68 million pursuing the same Massachusetts Senate seat.

The Federal Election Commission reports show Warren has raised $38.5 million in political donations as of mid-October, compared to Brown's $26.7 million. Brown's total doesn't include the $6 million left in his campaign account after the 2010 special election that propelled him into the Senate.

The fundraising reports amid the candidates' final sprints to Election Day in a race closely-watched for its impact on the broader fight for control of the Senate. Republicans must gain four seats to win the majority if President Barack Obama is re-elected, or three if Republican hopeful and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney prevails.

Despite the campaign cash and messaging, the race in the final stretch was about getting voters to the polls on Tuesday.

Brown embarked on a campaign bus tour with stops in Milford, North Grafton, Framingham and Wakefield, his childhood hometown. The tour is scheduled to conclude Monday night in Wrentham, where Brown lives.

Warren's Thursday schedule included stops in Quincy, Brockton and New Bedford, as she launched a new radio ad tweaking Brown for refusing a final debate offer.

The fourth debate was planned for Tuesday, but was delayed because of Superstorm Sandy. The gale caused widespread power outages but largely spared Massachusetts the severe damage seen in New York, New Jersey and other states.

Warren agreed to a rescheduled debate on Thursday, but Brown declined despite having twice pledged, once on Friday and again on Monday, that a final debate would happen. A Brown aide later pointed to a scheduling conflict with his bus tour.

In Warren's ad, a narrator faults Brown for declining the debate.

"Scott Brown backed out of his final debate with Elizabeth Warren," the narrator says. "Rather than discuss the issues, he had to grab a bus. With his record, you can't blame him for hitting the road."

Brown also released two new radio ads Thursday, including one featuring former Democratic Boston Mayor Ray Flynn praising Brown as a "sincere, independent, honest, hard-working voice" in the Senate. Flynn has offered repeated testimonials for Brown during the campaign.

A second radio ad mirrors Brown's closing television ad released on Wednesday in which Brown pledges to put "people ahead of politics" and "keep that independent tradition alive in Massachusetts."

The new campaign fundraising reports show that during the first 17 days of October, Warren added nearly $2.5 million to her fundraising total. During the same period, Brown collected nearly $1.6 million.

The reports also show both candidates are spending at a furious pace.

As of Oct. 17, Warren had just $3.5 million left in her account while Brown had $3.7 million left. On Thursday, the Brown campaign sent an email to supporters asking for donations to help keep his final television ad on the air.

The $68 million spent so far shatters all previous fundraising and spending records in Massachusetts. Even more remarkable is the fact that neither candidate has contributed any money to their own campaigns.

The campaign reports showed that the bulk of money coming into each campaign has been from individual contributors, although both Brown and Warren have also enjoyed support from political action committees.

Warren's report showed that during the election cycle she's collected more than $600,000 from PACs compared to the $3.2 million Brown collected from political action committees.

Both Warren and Brown also are fine-tuning efforts to get their voters to the polls on Tuesday.

Warren campaign officials say they're hoping to knock on a million doors and make 2 million phone calls in the campaign's final days.

Republicans say they've contacted more than 2 million voters and are planning a far more aggressive door-to-door voter turnout drive than two years ago.

President Obama should issue the following statement:

"I call Congress back into session on Thursday, November 8, for the sole purpose of appropriating money to begin the recovery from Hurricane Sandy.

In this national emergency, neither the American people nor I will tolerate the nonsense and posturing in which this Congress has been engaged for the last two years.

I do not care whether you will have won or have lost on November 6th. There are millions of your fellow citizens suffering.

They need help. They need it quickly.

No matter the outcome of the election, you will still have the power to help them.

Use it.

I will call out and hold up to shame any member who postures or does anything but look at the facts of the situation as we know them, and makes sensible suggestions about how we can speed relief.

The money appropriated now will just be the first installment. I will return for more as it becomes necessary. I expect to get it.

Never in our nation's history has the approval of Congress been so low.

You have a chance to redeem yourselves in the eyes of your countrymen and of history.

Do it.

If you need to work over the weekend of November 11th to get it done, that is your responsibility.

I expect a bill on my desk to sign no later than Monday, November 13th.

It had better be there."

Colin Powell's former chief of staff condemned the Republican Party on Friday night, telling MSNBC's Ed Schultz, "My party is full of racists."

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson made the comment in response to Mitt Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu's suggestion on Thursday that Powell's endorsement of President Barack Obama's re-election was motivated by race. Wilkerson, who served as Powell's chief of staff when the general was secretary of state during the first George W. Bush term, told Schultz that he respected Sununu "as a Republican, as a member of my party," but did not "have any respect for the integrity of the position that [Sununu] seemed to codify."

When asked by Schultz what, if anything, the remark said about the attitudes of the Republican Party, Wilkerson said:

My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable.

The retired colonel also said that "to say that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama because of his skin color is like saying Mother Theresa worked for profit."

Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama for the second time on Thursday morning -- he also backed the president in 2008 -- saying on CBS' "This Morning" that he was "more comfortable with President Obama and his administration" than with Romney on a host of issues.

Sununu, no stranger to incendiary rhetoric this election cycle, reacted to the endorsement on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," saying that "when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama."

Obama himself dismissed Sununu's suggestion on Friday, telling radio host Michael Smerconish:

Any suggestion that Gen. Powell would make such a profound statement in such an important election based on anything but what he thought was what's going to be best for America doesn't make much sense.

Sununu backed off his remarks shortly after his CNN appearance, issuing a statement that said Powell is a friend and, “I respect the endorsement decision he made, and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President’s policies."