The Associated Press reports that the Internal Revenue Service says it gave extra scrutiny to organizations with the names "Tea Party" or "Patriot" seeking tax-exempt status.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service is apologizing for inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.

Lerner said the practice, initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati, was wrong and she apologized while speaking at a conference in Washington.

Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They said the agency asked them an inordinate number of questions to justify their tax-exempt status.

Certain tax-exempt charitable groups can conduct political activities but it cannot be their primary activity.

UPDATE: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement calling for the Obama administration to conduct a review of "these thuggish practices":

“Today’s acknowledgement by the Obama administration that the IRS did in fact target conservative groups in the heat of last year’s national election is not enough. Today, I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views.

Last year, amid reports that the Obama administration was using the levers of executive power to harass conservative political groups in Kentucky and elsewhere, I issued a very public warning to the administration that the targeting of private citizens on the basis of their political views would not be tolerated. Today’s apology by the IRS is proof that those concerns were well founded. But make no mistake, an apology won’t put this issue to rest. Now more than ever we need to send a clear message to the Obama Administration that the First Amendment is non-negotiable, and that apologies after an election year are not an sufficient response to what we now know took place at the IRS. This kind of political thuggery has absolutely no place in our politics.”

In another finding from the new NBC News/Marist poll, 55 percent of Virginia residents say they want stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus 36 percent who want them left the same.

Reflecting Virginia's status as a key national swing state -- President Obama twice won it by the same margin he won the national popular vote -- those numbers are virtually identical to the national ones from the April NBC/WSJ poll.

But there are fascinating political, demographic and geographic differences inside these numbers.

Eighty-two percent of Democrats in Virginia want stricter gun laws, compared with 56 percent of independents and just 29 percent of Republicans.

What's more, only 30 percent of gun owners and 38 percent of those living in households with guns favor stricter gun laws, suggesting a deep divide on this issue between gun owners and non-gun owners.

But that's not the only split: 68 percent of women in the state want stricter gun laws, versus just 41 percent of men who do.

And there's geography. A whopping 70 percent of those living in the Northern Virginian suburbs just outside of Washington, D.C., support stricter gun laws. That's compared with the Northern Virginian exurbs (49 percent), the central and western part of the state (49 percent), the Richmond area (49 percent), and the Tidewater region (59 percent).

The NBC/Marist poll was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,218 adults in Virginia, and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 2.8 percentage points.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed doubts that the nation's highest court should have ruled on the controversial Bush v. Gore case that decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board on Friday. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

The Tribune has more from O'Connor:

The case, she said, "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."

"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," she said. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."

O'Connor, who was appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan in 1981, was part of the 5-4 majority deciding to stop the recount in the crucial battleground state of Florida.

First Read confirms that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., will not run for re-election in 2014. The news was first reported by the Washington Post.

Baucus, 71, who was first elected in 1978, currently chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee. He recently angered liberals when he voted against the background-check measure on gun control.

Baucus' decision gives Republicans a key pick-up opportunity in Montana -- where President Obama won just 42 percent of the vote in 2012.

However, a Democrat familiar with former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer's thinking says the former governor is leaning toward running for Baucus' seat, which would give Democrats a solid chance at holding onto the seat. 

So far this cycle, six Senate Democrats have announced they won't seek re-election -- Baucus, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. And two Republicans have announced their upcoming retirements -- Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Mike Johanns of Nebraska.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:06 AM EDT

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file photo

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

In a video posted on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of gay marriage.

These are her first comments backing gay marriage since leaving the State Department, and they could potentially hint at her 2016 ambitions. (After President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other Democrats have endorsed gay marriage, it's likely that the future Democratic nominee -- in 2016 and beyond -- will have to back it.)

"I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples," Clinton says in the video. "I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and for all Americans."

She continues, "Like so many others, my views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith."

When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan was asked why his latest budget repeals the 2010 federal health-care -- despite the results of last year's presidential election -- the former Republican vice-presidential running mate gave this answer.

"So just because the election didn't go our way," he told National Review," that means we're supposed to change our principles?"

But on the eve of the three-day Conference Political Action Conference (CPAC) that begins on Thursday in the DC area and that will hear from countless Republican politicians, Ryan's answer raises this follow-up question:

What principles -- beyond opposing President Obama's agenda?

Is the GOP a free-market party, or one that's willing to federally bail out the banks if the country is on the brink of another Great Depression?

Is it a party that believes in strong national defense, or is it willing to wage a nearly 13-hour filibuster to highlight how drones could infringe on civil liberties?

Is the GOP a party that stresses deficit reduction and balanced budgets above all else, or is it one willing to support unpaid-for wars and unpaid-for new entitlements?

Is it a party that favors comprehensive immigration reform, or that opposes it?

Does the GOP oppose tax increases, or will it vote for raising rates on the wealthiest Americans?

And is it a party that opposes gay marriage, or one that's becoming more accepting of it?

Yes, the GOP believes in lower taxes and less government. But as Politico's Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman write, many of the tensions above will be on display at CPAC as the party -- after its second-straight presidential loss -- finds itself in the midst of an "identity crisis."

"The pillars of the conservative era ushered in by Reagan — a muscular defense, traditional cultural values and devotion to free markets – are being questioned by leading Republicans, and what could take the place of the Gipper’s trinity is now being openly debated in a fashion more reminiscent of the famously fractious Democrats of yore."

Ryan, who speaks at CPAC on Friday, embodies many of these very tensions. He warns of deficits and debt, but supported the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. He believes in the free market, but voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (or TARP). And he now supports comprehensive immigration reform (and maybe even a path to citizenship), but was on a presidential ticket opposing it.

Of course, it's only natural for a party outside the White House to experience an identity crisis. After all, there's no one true leader to unify the different constituencies. And the one unifying force is opposing the president in power -- and that's true whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the Oval Office.

Indeed, after their second-straight presidential loss in 2004, Democrats faced a similar identity crisis. Should it strenuously oppose the Iraq war, or support it? Push for universal health care, or ignore it? Disagree with the Bush-era tax cuts, or call for them to expire?

Yet by the time the Democratic race for president began, the top candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson -- were unified on all the big issues. They opposed the Iraq war; they supported universal health care; they were against the Bush tax cuts. That's why the Democratic primary was fought over the margins (like whether there should be a mandate for health insurance).

And for Republicans, that's the story to watch over the next couple of years. It's one thing for the party to experience an identity crisis in 2013 and 2014. It's another thing -- as Obama prepares to exit office -- to experience that in 2015 and 2016. 

During his presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was an easy target for establishment Republicans to ridicule.

Many laughed at his demands to "end" the Federal Reserve and reinstitute the gold standard. At debates, they sometimes booed his non-interventionist views on foreign policy and national security. And he never won a single nominating contest during those two presidential runs, though he did rack up delegates in 2012.

But Paul -- and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- could be the ones laughing now.

Indeed, Rand Paul's marathon filibuster on Wednesday against President Obama's pick to head the CIA -- joined by other GOP senators (including conservative stars like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) -- was the latest evidence that the Pauls might have had a larger imprint on today's Republican Party than its last two presidential nominees.

Consider the libertarianism in the Tea Party, the calls to cut spending, the growing suspicion of the Federal Reserve, and some growing skepticism about the use of force.

That sounds much more like Ron Paul than John McCain or Mitt Romney. And son Rand is already being viewed as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

But it also doesn't mean that all Republicans have jumped on board. On Thursday, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate floor to denounce Rand Paul's criticism of the Obama administration's drone program -- the issue at the heart of his filibuster.

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms," McCain said, quoting the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.

"To somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination, which is frankly ridiculous," McCain added.

But that even this drone debate is taking place inside the GOP -- and that Cruz and Rubio joined Paul's filibuster -- shows the growing influence that the Pauls have had on the GOP and conservatism.

Americans For Responsible Solutions, the gun-control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, is airing TV ads in Arizona and Iowa to persuade Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to back universal background checks.

"We have a problem -- where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school," Giffords says to the camera in one of the ads. "But there are solutions we can agree on, even gun owners like us." The screen then says: "Tell Senator Grassley to support background checks."

Recommended: Jeb Bush lays down his marker

Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that's considering all the gun-control legislation, and Flake also is a member of the committee. (Flake also represents the state, Arizona, where Giffords once served as a congresswoman before she was shot by a gunman.)

The ads -- a combined six-figure ad buy through this week and next -- are almost carbon copies of the advertisements Americans For Responsible Solutions aired last month.

With the automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to begin on Friday, Americans are split over whether President Barack Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, respondents conclude that the Republican Party is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.

In the poll, 48 percent say Obama is pursuing a path to unify the country in a bipartisan way, while 43 percent say he's taking a partisan approach that doesn't unify the country.

Recommended: Boehner blasts Senate Democrats for inaction

By comparison, 64 percent say the Republican Party is taking a partisan approach, versus 22 percent who say it's focused on unity.

As for the Democratic Party, a plurality of respondents -- by a 49 percent to 37 percent margin -- think it is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.

The full NBC/WSJ poll -- which was conducted Feb. 21-24 of 1,000 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- comes out beginning at 6:30 pm ET.

It's unclear if the tragic shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School -- as well as the subsequent ones across the country -- will lead to passage of gun-control legislation in Congress. But they might have had this immediate result: transforming the politics and focus inside the Democratic Party, at least in solid-blue districts and states.

Look no farther than Tuesday's upcoming Democratic special congressional primary in Illinois to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in the Chicago area, where Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly has become the front-runner, thanks in large part to the issue of guns.

"Robin Kelly has spent her career fighting to get deadly weapons off our streets," goes one of her TV ads. "In Congress, Kelly will keep taking on the NRA, fighting to ban assault weapons and outlaw high-capacity ammunition clips."

Recommended: Third Republican comes out in support of Hagel; 15 others ask Obama to withdraw nomination

A super PAC funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Independence USA, has spent more than $2 million in the race to both endorse Kelly and knock two of her opponents with strong gun-rights records, including former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson (the only white candidate running in this multi-candidate field).

"In the race to replace Jesse Jackson, watch out for Debbie Halvorson. When she was in Congress before, Halvorson got an 'A' from the NRA," argued an Independence USA TV ad, adding: "Debbie Halvorson -- when it comes to preventing gun violence, she gets an 'F.'"

Another ad by the group goes, "In the race for Congress, the big issue -- fighting gun violence. Debbie Halvorson and Toi Hutchison both earned an 'A' from the NRA. They can't be trusted."

(Hutchison has since dropped out of the race and has endorsed Kelly, providing more evidence that Kelly is the candidate to beat on Feb. 26.)

Recommended: GOP's weak position on the sequester

While this is just one race occurring in a city that has been plagued by gun violence, next week’s special primary highlights three important points:

1. The National Rifle Association has become anathema to many Democratic voters. That’s especially true in the wake of the organization’s combative public relations campaign after the Newtown shootings, which included the NRA invoking President Barack Obama’s daughters in an advertisement attacking the president. According to last month’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 20 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA, versus 57 percent who had an unfavorable view. (That’s compared with 64 percent of Republicans and even 49 percent of independents who hold a favorable view of the organization.) In past Democratic primaries, an NRA endorsement was either a badge of honor or something that at least wasn't viewed as a major liability. That may not be true anymore, at least in congressional districts like this one in Illinois.

2. Bloomberg’s organizations have become a countervailing force. Mark Glaze, the executive director for another Bloomberg organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, argues that one of the biggest reasons why gun-control laws have been weakened over the past decade is because “the NRA has been the only game in town.” But as the Illinois race has proved, Bloomberg’s groups are willing to spend millions in races on behalf of candidates supporting gun control. (Interestingly, the NRA has not spent money in this particular Democratic primary.) As one Democratic strategist tells First Read, “Candidates no longer have to fear the NRA mobilizing disproportionate force against them. They just need some backup.”

3. But does this apply outside of urban areas? That could be the biggest question moving forward after Tuesday’s race. While the NRA is unpopular with Democrats and while Bloomberg’s group have displayed their muscle, does that also hold true in places like West Virginia (where Democrats will be competing to replace retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller) or even in Iowa (which has open Senate and House seats in 2014)? “West Virginia and Illinois will always be different,” Glaze says, noting that states like West Virginia have “more hunting, more guns, and less crime.” He adds, “That creates a different political dynamic.” Indeed, the NRA is running newspaper ads in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina -- where Democratic senators are running for re-election next year -- opposing the Obama administration’s gun-control proposals.