Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker introduced himself Thursday night to Iowa Republicans at a party fundraiser in Polk County, saying it’s time for the national party to look to the governors—and to the Midwest—for their leader.

“We’ve laid a positive foundation to move Wisconsin forward, and people wanted to continue down that path—we need to do that nationally as well,” said Walker.

And, the neighboring governor not-so-subtly reminded voters half a dozen times during his 40-minute speech that he lived in Plainfield, a tiny town in northeast Iowa, as a child.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was in the Granite State earlier this week, delivering his own prescription for the GOP at a fundraiser in Concord, N.H., and talking in an unusually elaborate way of how his party needed to diversify.

“We need to have black people, white people brown people—we need to have people with tattoos, without tattoos, with long hair, with short hair, with bears, without beards,” said Paul. “We need to look more like America.”

And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who’s familiar with taking heat from his own party, will welcome President Obama back to his state on Tuesday for a tour of the Jersey shore, which has reopened after Hurricane Sandy.

In an Friday interview while touring the rebuilding, Today’s Matt Lauer asked the Republican governor whether another appearance of that political odd couple could hurt him with his own party.

“I think that what people in my state want me to do more than anything else is for me to do my job,” said Christie. “The fact of the matter is he’s the president of United States and if he wants to come here and see the people of New Jersey, I’m the governor I’ll be here to welcome him.”

The attorney general green-lighted a controversial search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News.

The search warrant also labeled Rosen a “possible co-conspirator” in a leak investigation, which has alarmed critics who argue the government is overreaching and criminalizing investigative journalism. The latest revelation comes as the Justice Department is already coming under fire for seizing phone records of Associated Press journalists for an investigation into the leaking of information about a CIA operation in Yemen to stop a bomb plot.

President Obama, who has said he was unaware of the DOJ investigation on AP reporters, has carefully tried to strike a balance between being concerned about the country’s security while also demonstrating his commitment to a free press.

The president reasserted the need to protect classified information during a major speech on national security on Thursday, but also said he was “troubled” by the impact such leak investigations could have on journalism.

“Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs,” Obama said.

Holder was grilled by the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee on the AP case last week, although he insisted he recused himself from the matter and that it was his deputy, James Cole, who approved those subpoenas. In the Fox News case, however, it’s now clear that Holder was directly involved.

The DOJ case centers on Rosen, because he allegedly received classified information from Stephen Jin-Woo, a security adviser at the State Department, for a story about North Korea’s nuclear program.

The DOJ has charged Kim with violating the Espionage Act. Rosen has not been charged in the case but has been investigated after an FBI agent said he “asked, solicited and encouraged…(a source) to disclose sensitive documents and intelligence.”

After the secret subpoena on the AP records was revealed, the president asked New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to reintroduce media shield legislation that previously failed.

Obama also said on Thursday that he has directed Holder to review the existing DOJ guidelines involving reporters and will gather a group of media organizations to voice their concerns. Holder is expected to report back to the president by July 12.

“This review is consistent with Attorney General Holder’s long-standing belief that freedom of the press is essential to our democracy,” the DOJ said in a statement. “At the same time, the Attorney General believes that leaks of classified information damage our national security and must be investigated using appropriate law enforcement tools. We remain steadfast in our commitment to following all laws and regulations intended to safeguard national security as well as the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has gone as far as to demand that Holder resign. Obama vehemently defended Holder after reports about the AP probe surfaced.

“I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as attorney general,” the president said last week at a press conference. “He does his job with integrity and I expect he will continue to do so

So, while the president made some worthwhile proposals that would put us on a better path, Obama’s speech was heavy on rhetoric and process about Guantanamo, but woefully short on commitment to immediate action.

On targeted killing, he reasserted the same flawed premise of a war of global dimensions, not only against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but so-called “associated forces,” wherever they may be. He spoke movingly and importantly about the dawn of a new day, but made clear that day is still not today, despite 12 years of “war.”

Obama’s most specific and important announcement was that he will repeal the moratorium on sending some Yemeni detainees home. That moratorium has trapped more than half of the men at Guantanamo, 56 of whom have been cleared for release for years. But the rest of his speech lacked the specificity and urgency warranted by the 11-year crisis at the base.

On transfers, he stated only that cleared men will be released “to the greatest extent possible.” He did not, for example, say that he would immediately require Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to begin certifying men for transfer, or issuing waivers to begin rapidly drawing-down the prison population. That is something he could begin doing tomorrow and would spare our cleared clients, Djamel Ameziane and Mohammed Al-Hamiri, and scores of other Guantanamo detainees continued unnecessary torment.

Instead, he called on Congress to lift restrictions on other transfers and promised to take the issue of closing Guantanamo back to Congress. But while lifting the restrictions may ultimately be necessary, the president has—right now—the legislative authority he needs to begin drawing down the population and closing the prison. Lives are at stake. The men at Guantanamo depend on Obama acting.

Another glaring omission about Guantanamo was any mention of the rapidly deteriorating conditions at the prison. The use of solitary confinement and sexually humiliating body searches are commonplace at the prison. His Defense Department clearly has the authority to change that.

Much of Obama’s speech addressed his targeted killing program, under which the Justice Department acknowledged this week that it killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen. Yet, Obama offered no specific proposals for accountability for those deaths or scores of others, and omitted one of the most obvious routes – ordinary judicial review of alleged violations.

Despite promising in his speech for more oversight and transparency, the administration’s recent responses to Congress have not been heartening. The Senate committee tasked with oversight of the program had to demand—repeatedly—to see basic legal memos justifying the killing of Americans, never mind foreign citizens.

While Obama outlined ostensibly narrower standards for the targeting of individuals – requiring a “continuing and imminent” threat and “infeasibility of capture” before lethal force may be used—the proof will be in the pudding. The Justice Department interpretation of imminence in a leaked white paper—for example, that it does not require clear evidence of a specific threat in the immediate future—gives cause for skepticism. If imminence doesn’t mean imminence, it’s hard to see how much real change we’ll see in the program.

The president stated that we need to think about the world we are creating and leaving behind, but codifying this program sets a dangerous precedent for other countries and future administrations. If the White House were complying with existing, accepted legal standards, there would be no need for a new playbook.

In May 2009 a number of human rights leaders and I met with the president just before his national archives speech, his last major address on national security. As I noted at the time, the news was how drastically Obama pivoted towards the Bush approach to detention policy. With respect to Thursday’s speech, what didn’t happen was a pivot back to the path of the rule of law and justice.

“It is very important to get her out of the way here so we can start fresh leadership,” Van Hollen said on Friday’s The Daily Rundown. “It’s good they are moving forward right now and we have to continue the investigation and get to the bottom of this issue.”

Van Hollen, who serves as the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said he’s  hopeful about the prospect of immigration reform as it moves forward, but that a bipartisan version of the Senate bill is also needed in the House.

“There aren’t a majority of Republicans in the House who support a bill like the Senate bill. So if we can put something together in the House like the Senate bill and still get it out with the majority vote, let the House work its will; that would be the way to go. We cannot allow the momentum from the immigration reform bill in the Senate to slow down,” he said.

After hearing President Obama’s Thursday speech outlining modified counterterrorism efforts, Van Hollen said he supported an updated and balanced approach.

“We need to update it for the newer threats but make sure we also don’t have open ended authority for presidents to do whatever they want without greater oversight and transparency,” said Van Hollen.

The former Democratic congressman’s rising stock in New York and national politics seemed over after he sent lewd pictures over social media to several women — and his nascent comeback for New York City mayor has already gotten off to a rocky start this week: Weiner admitted there could be more damning photos to surface, and he was caught with the wrong city skyline on his campaign website.

Weiner’s attempted rehabilitation comes just weeks after former Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., was elected in a congressional special election four years after he admitted he disappeared from the state and revealed he had been having an affair with an Argentinian woman.

There are big differences between the two men’s comeback attempts, but one common thread—partisanship is often the biggest factor in determining whether politicians survive or fail. Sanford’s biggest hurdle was winning the GOP primary, and even against a vaunted Democratic rival, he still won a bigger than expected victory.

Similarly, Weiner’s toughest challenge will be in the Big Apple race’s Democratic primary, where New York City Council President Christine Quinn is still the frontrunner, albeit a fragile one. But if he does manage to win the Democratic nod, his chances skyrocket.

Weiner was forced from office when it became clear Democratic leadership had abandoned him– but it was also the subsequent coverup and his initial lies that his Twitter account had been hacked that may have sealed his fate. While Sanford had initially told his staff he was “hiking the Appalachian trail,” he did fully admit to the affair — maybe in more detail than some had wished at the time — and he managed to stay in office.

While not all sex-scandal related, there are a few other races to keep an eye on in the next election cycle, and how partisanship could — and sometimes has already been — chief in these ongoing stories already

– Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., was a surprise winner in the 2010 GOP wave, defeating Blue Dog Democrat Lincoln Davis. This seat was one Democrats weren’t hopeful at gaining back, especially given that President Obama had gotten just 36% there in 2008. Then, testimony from DesJarlias’ divorce surfaced showing that the physician had inappropriate relationships with several patients and co-workers and that the anti-abortion doctor had supported his ex-wife’s decision to terminate two pregnancies.

That behavior would seem like a cardinal sin within the GOP and in the conservative state. But, even as that part of his past dripped out, DesJarlais went on to defeat his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Eric Stewart, by 12 points as Romney won the district by 32 points. This week, DesJarlais received a fine and admonishment for the past relationships from the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners.

But the statewide GOP knives are already coming out for the two-term congressman, who has remained defiant that he’s running for a third term regardless. He’s gotten at least two primary challengers so far in state Sen. Jim Tracy and state Rep. Joe Carr — but a crowded primary could be the best thing for DesJarlais. Tennessee doesn’t have a runoff, and DesJarlais could win with even a small plurality if his opponents split the anti-DesJarlais vote. If that’s the case, he’d likely defeat any Democratic sacrificial lamb in the fall again.

–Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., survived a spirited primary challenge last year amid investigations into his finances and taxes, leading to his censure by the House in 2010. The longtime Harlem pol had a significant chunk of new territory thanks to redistricting, and with an increasingly Hispanic electorate, had an energetic challenge from state Sen. Adriano Espaillat, but other challengers also helped split the vote. In the heavily Democratic seat, Rangel won easily in November.

The scandals seem to have passed for the 22-term congressman, but there’s questions as to whether the 82-year-old Democrat will seek another term in 2014. Rangel spokeswoman Hannah Kim told The Daily Rundown in a statement that Rangel “has just been reelected” and was “extremely busy holding numerous events in the newly-drawn district” but didn’t elaborate on his plans for next year. But other pols are already eyeing his seat, including Espaillat and even former Gov. David Paterson, who had his own scandals in office too.

–Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., was a surprise winner in 2012 — even though he sits in a heavily Democratic seat in Massachusetts. The congressman weathered bad press after his brothers-in-law were convicted in an illegal gambling ring, and his wife was even convicted of of tax fraud. While Tierney continually denied any wrongdoing despite his brother-in-laws’ statement otherwise, Republicans saw a prime chance, and even recruited moderate Republican Richard Tisei, an openly gay, pro-choice former nominee for lieutenant governor, to challenge him. In the race’s waning days even Democrats thought this was a lost cause, but Democratic turnout was too much for Tisei to overcome, and Tierney won by one point, 48%-47%, with a libertarian candidate getting nearly 5%, as Obama won the district by 11 points. Republicans think this seat is still within their grasp, maybe in a midterm year with dropoff turnout and without a third-party candidate. Tisei is weighing another run, but Democrats think Tierney may have survived the worst.

–Sen. David Vitter, R-La., seems to be the political anomaly among sex scandals. In 2007, the conservative Republican senator admitted he was was a client of the “D.C. madam” prostitution ring, but stood up at a press conference with his wife by his side and asked for forgiveness. Both his party, and the voters, gave it. In 2010, he won re-election with 57% of the vote. Vitter’s past may be behind him, but as the senator now seems to be weighing a gubernatorial bid in 2015, Democrats will surely bring up his past sins again.

The president also spent much of the week trying to revive his legislative agenda–which looked all-but-doomed following the Internal Revenue Service scandal, a fresh round of Benghazi hearings, and the Department of Justice’s decision to seize phone records of Associated Press journalists. This was a pivotal moment for the president, who is seeking to keep his second term moving forward.

Here’s how the week played out.

First, Oklahoma: At a news conference on Tuesday, Obama spoke forcefully, intent on showing leadership and engagement—traits that critics said he lacked during scandalpalozza. Besides promising aid, Obama pointed to American resilience in the face of other natural disasters that have struck the nation, including in Joplin, Mo., Tuscaloosa, Ala., and Breezy Point, N.Y. He also mentioned Boston, which was rocked by twin bombings at last month’s marathon.

“In some cases there will be enormous grief that has to be absorbed, but you will not travel that path alone. Your country will travel with you, Obama said. “We are a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes.” The president will travel to the tornado-ravaged town of Moore on Sunday to survey the twister’s devastation and to meet with survivors.

Next up, immigration reform: The president is urging lawmakers to pass a final plan after the bill cleared a major hurdle in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. “None of the committee members got everything they wanted and neither did I, but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line,” said Obama after the vote.

The proposal that passed–after weeks of hearings–beefs up border security and would allow the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship. The 13-5 vote occurred only after panel chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy agreed to drop a provision allowing gay Americans to seek green cards for their same-sex spouses or partners.

Republicans had made clear they would not support a bill that included the LGBT visa proposal. The trade-off was painful for many Democrats (and perhaps also for Obama) but it kept alive the prospect of achieving immigration reform. The full Senate is expected to begin debating the bill next month.

The IRS scandal continues to simmer, amid Congressional hearings on the tax collection agency’s targeting of conservative groups before the 2012 election. Obama says he was unaware of the practice, and the White House seemingly offered a new account of how and when it learned the IRS was specially scrutinizing certain groups.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, along with other top officials, about the IRS’ findings nearly a month ago. Ruemmler decided the information should not be delivered to the president because the inspector general’s report had not been released. Previously, the White House said they did not know about the targeting until the report was released last week.

And then, on Wednesday, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who heads the tax-exempt division at the IRS, invoked her constitutional right to not testify as a witness at a House Oversight committee hearing. She insisted, however, that “I have not done anything wrong.” She quickly came under fire from Republicans for not elaborating on her role.

The White House, still reeling from headlines that the Department of Justice issued subpoenas for AP phone records while investigating the disclosure of classified information having to do with a CIA operation in Yemen, was dealt another blow, too: it was revealed that the DOJ sought a warrant in 2010 to inspect the private emails of Fox News correspondent James Rosen as well.

On Thursday, Obama had a chance to make news rather than react to it, giving a major speech on national security. He repeated his call to close the controversial detention facility in Guantanamo Bay where more than 100 detainees are on a hunger strike. He also defended the use of drones, insisting that the tactic is both effective and legal. “We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war—a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.” The remarks come as Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged for the first time that the U.S. killed four Americans in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric.

Obama made the case that drones were the best available option in certain circumstances. “For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen–with a drone or with a shotgun–without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil,” he said. “But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team,” he said, referring to al-Awlaki, who planned a Christmas Day 2009 bombing of a plane over Detroit.

Obama said he’s asked his administration to review proposals to extend oversight of drone strikes and wants to work with Congress on establishing an independent court to review future potential strikes.

In the Thursday speech Obama discussed the future of Gitmo. As a candidate, Obama promised to close the Guantanamo detention center. The fact that it remains open–holding detainees who have been cleared or never charged, and with increasing concerns about the force-feeding of hunger-strikers–is seen by many in the president’s progressive base as the most significant disappointment of his presidency.

During his foreign policy speech, Obama repeated his call for Congress to close the prison camp. He announced he would lift (his own) moratorium on transferring the prison’s Yemeni detainees to their home country. But he didn’t disavow the practice of indefinite detention.

Even with the human rights questions that remained unanswered, the national security speech was a strong performance. Obama–with his speech about race and Rev. Wright, his defense of “just wars” when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize–has shown an ability to communicate complex ideas to the public with nuance and authority.

He is also apparently benefiting from optimism about the economy: despite the messy week, Obama’s approval rating stayed above 50%.

The next few weeks will be full of more tests for the president as he seeks to regain control of the political conversation. He will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping early next month in California to discuss cyber security and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. He’ll also visit Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. And there’s nothing like an exotic backdrop to produce some fresh headlines–even as his political opponents show no sign of letting go of the old ones.

President Obama will address the graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy as cases of sex abuse skyrocket in all branches of the military. White House officials say the president will address the epidemic of abuse.

In his major speech yesterday on terrorism, President Obama vowed the end of the perpetual war on terror, a war he said was unsustainable for democracy.

President Obama defied his critics in nominating the State Department official who had a key role editing the Benghazi talking points to a high-ranking position. Obama nominated Victoria Nuland to be assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs.

Meanwhile the official at the heart of the IRS scandal has been suspended. Lois Lerner, who refused to testify before a Congressional panel this week, has been placed on administrative leave.

It’s no surprise that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ pick to win the 2016 Iowa caucuses, but look who’s leading among the Republicans…

Finally, President Obama will once again team up with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie along the Jersey Shore. In the days before the election, Obama’s appearance touring the damage from Hurricane Sandy with the Republican governor burnished the president’s bipartisan bonafides, while some Republicans were angered at Christie for praising the president’s efforts.

Earlier this week, Democratic Arizona State Rep. Juan Mendez was invited by a Republican-controlled House to give the day’s opening prayer. What Mendez, an atheist, said was less a prayer than an invocation of the First Amendment, and the separation of church and state:

Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads. I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all the men and women here in this moment, sharing this extraordinary experience of being alive, and dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people of our state. This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration. But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist traditions stress, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences…Let us root our policy-making process in these values that are relevant to all Arizonans, regardless of religious belief or non-belief. In gratitude and in love, in reason and in compassion, let us work together for a better Arizona.

Fellow Arizona Rep. Steve Smith, however, didn’t seem to think Mendez’s prayer was adequate; the next day he led the Arizona House to join him in a prayer of repentance for it. The Speaker of the Arizona House, though appreciative of Smith’s concern, said he saw no issue with Mendez’s prayer.

The Pope too seemed to soften the Roman Catholic church’s stance on atheism Wednesday in a weekly radio address. As MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said in Thursday’s Rewrite, His Holiness “got all performance art and inserted an imaginary atheist in a dialogue” about doing good.

“We must meet one another doing good,” the Pope implored, to which the fictional atheist in his speech said: “‘But I don’t believe, Father. I am an atheist!’ But do good,” the Pope replied, “we will meet one another there.”

This exchange, said O’Donnell, “is a very big improvement on ‘you will burn in Hell forever,’ which was the official Catholic position [on atheism] through the first half of the 20th Century.”

Carmen asks:

“You’ve said in the past about contacting our representatives. I don’t understand how the process works and was wondering if you can explain.”

Rev’s response:

“First thing, you can pick up the phone and call the main number for Congress, that’s 202-224-3121, just say what state you’re from and ask to be connected to one of your senators. You can also visit usa.gov – click on the Contact Government page, where you can find your lawmakers listed by state.”

James asks:

“I would like to know why is it that you persist on cheerleading for a president (which I voted for) that is clearly not doing the job we hired him to do. Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer this email.”

Rev’s response:

“Well, I’m answering this email. I am cheerleading for the reasons I supported this president. Health care, people with preexisting conditions, young people that could not get insured, millions of people that will get that. I’m cheerleading for the job creation that he’s done in the private sector, and fighting to make sure we get it in the public sector. I’m cheerleading for what he’s doing to continue to fight for voter rights and other things. I supported the president for reasons, and I’m cheerleading those reasons. Do I disagree with some things like drones and others? Yes, and I say that. But maybe you support people because you intend to support that when they get in.”

Tad asks:

“Your work takes you all over the place… You still do your radio and TV show. How is that possible? How many hours do you sleep?”

Rev’s response:

“I sleep about four or six hours a night. When you love what you do it’s not work. I enjoy what I do. Radio every day, TV five days a week, run National Action Network, preach at churches, I love what I’m doing. Sleep? The only time I sleep is when I have to, and even then, as long as the right-wing has the majority of Congress, I sleep with one eye open.”

To submit your own question, email AskRev@msnbc.com, Tweet #AskRev, or go to our Facebook page to leave a comment on one of our Ask Rev threads.

Yes, we’re talking about Anthony Weiner.

Weiner officially announced his campaign via Youtube around midnight on Tuesday, drawing speculation that the announcement was strategically timed to prevent New York City tabloids from pun-laden headlines about his announcement.

Since the big reveal, things haven’t exactly been smooth sailing. If you happened to log onto Weiner’s campaign website before this afternoon, you might have noticed that the imagery behind Weiner’s campaign logo featured a skyline. Picturesque? Yes. The problem was, it was the Pittsbugh skyline. The error was fixed but the screenshots live on.

That aside, even the candidate acknowledges that there’s no way to avoid having his campaign double as an ongoing apology tour. “I have apologized many, many times to my wife, and frankly I know that part of this process is going to be doing a lot of apologizing,” he said in an interview with WNYC.

Weiner did not rule out the possible existence of additional snapshots like the ones that led to his resignation from Congress.

“If reporters want to go and try to find more–I can’t say whether they’ll be able to find another picture or another person who may want to come out on their own,” he told WNYC.

Then there’s the question of how other prominent politicians with ties to the candidate and New York in general are reacting to Weiner’s mayoral bid.

Speaking with reporters in Buffalo yesterday, a fellow Democrat, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, started out coy. “None. No reaction. None. Look, my face didn’t move. No reaction.” By day’s end however, Cuomo  had shifted gears and said that it would be “shame on us” for New Yorkers if Weiner were elected.

There’s was initial speculation about whether Bill and Hillary Clinton will show support for Anthony Weiner, given their close ties to Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin. Abedin served as a close aide to Hillary Clinton during her stint as Secretary of State. Speculation ended when a spokesman for Hillary Clinton provided a statement to Politico. “Secretary Clinton knows all of the candidates, she has worked with many of them, and is close with many of them, so won’t be weighing in one way or the other,” said spokesman Nick Merrill.

We’re just a few weeks out from the successful comeback of Republican Mark Sanford. Just four years after his fabricated hike on the Appalachian Trail that turned out to be an extramarital affair in Argentina, the former South Carolina governor won a congressional race in South Carolina. Weiner says he’s not looking to follow in Sanford’s footsteps.

“I don’t look at my race through the lens of anyone else’s experience,” Weiner told Talking Points Memo. “Believe me, mine is unique enough.”