From NBC's Mark Murray
At the town hall Pennsylvania Arlen Specter (D) held yesterday, one attendee said, "If you guys think that we want health-care reform so bad, do this -- let's have a referendum in 2010. We'll tell you if we like your plan or not. How's that work?"

In a way, however, there already was a referendum: last year's presidential election, which Obama won by seven percentage points (53%-46%) and 192 electoral votes (365-173).

During the two-year presidential campaign, in both the primaries and the general election, Obama wasn't shy about his objectives on health care. He called for universal care; favored a public/government insurance option; talked about lowering costs; and stressed the need to reduce waste and inefficiencies.

"The very first promise I made on this campaign was that as president, I will sign a universal health-care plan into law by the end of my first term in office," then-candidate Obama said on May 29, 2007, when he unveiled his plans on the issue.

What's more, all the top Democrats running for president (Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards) had similar health-care plans. The biggest debate among them, in fact, was whether there would be an individual mandate -- not whether there would be a public option or higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for reform.

Yet what's ironic, especially given the town-hall protests we're seeing, is that Obama's health-care plans weren't something the McCain camp ever really assailed during the general election. McCain's ads whacked Obama over experience, Bill Ayers, taxes, for being liberal, for "sharing the wealth," and even Tony Rezko. But there was nothing aimed squarely at health care (although you could argue that the arguments over taxes and "sharing the wealth" are playing key roles in this current debate).

McCain did address Obama's health-care plans in his convention acceptance speech. "My health-care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance," he said. "His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

But that was about it.

"It really didn't register during the campaign," a former McCain official told First Read. "And look where we are now."

And if anyone seized on health care, it was the Obama campaign, which blasted McCain's plans to tax employee health benefits. "John McCain talks about a $5,000 tax credit for health care," went one of Obama's TV ads. "But here's what he's not telling you: McCain would make you pay income tax on your health insurance benefits -- taxing health benefits for the first time ever."

"I know they got us good," the McCain official said. "They gut-punched us pretty hard."

But a Republican congressional official makes the point that A LOT has changed in the last few months to make Obama health-care plans more of a target than they were in 2008 -- the bank bailouts, the auto bailout, the $787 billion stimulus, and now the potential for a $1 trillion health-care bill (over 10 years).

"The plan is just flat unacceptable for an American public given the events of the past nine months."

NBC's Ali Weinberg contributed to this article.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Towns halls gone wild: After going on for several days now, who looks worse in this town-halls-gone-wild story? An Obama administration that promised a new era of American politics, but that isn't delivering on it? A Republican Party/conservative movement -- less than seven months removed from the White House -- stoking this anger and hoping it returns them to power? American citizens who can't treat their neighbors or elected officials with respect, even when they disagree? Or a media covering the story but also amplifying the exaggerations and outright lies being told at these town halls? Ah, the classic political story … nobody wins, we're all losers in these eyes of the true silent majority: the radical middle? To look at this debate through the prism of campaign politics, has anyone raised their POSITIVE ratings or simply succeeded in raising the NEGATIVE ratings of an opponent? 

*** Rampant misinformation: As it turns out, one of the most striking things watching the town halls yesterday -- Obama's, Specter's, and McCaskill's -- was how misinformed the public was about the health-care debate. It's no wonder that Obama spent much of his time yesterday explaining what his plans WOULDN'T do versus what they WOULD do. Here's one question that Specter received: "President Obama has stated more than once that his goal is to have a single-payer system. Are you for a single-payer system? (While Obama expressed support for a single-payer system before becoming a U.S. senator, he campaigned against it during the presidential contest, and every bill that has cleared a congressional committee doesn't establish a single-payer system.) Here's another: "I reviewed [H.R.] 3200 the best I could. To me it was obviously written with the assumption that government has the right to control our lives from pre-birth to death." (As PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and the AP have written, there is nothing in any piece of legislation that has a say in end-of-life decisions. The provision that has caused the uproar authorizes Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes.)

Video: Craig Miller, who confronted Sen. Arlen Specter at a town hall meeting, talks about the incident on MSNBC.
                                     

*** More fact-checking: Another question: "I do not want to pay on my health care plan that includes the right for a woman to kill her unborn baby. Is it true that this plan is in the health care bill?" (In the House legislation, no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions; if a woman wants an abortion under her plan, the money would come from her insurance premiums. Also, Americans would have the choice of choosing an insurance plan that covers abortion and one that does not.) And here was this question Specter received: "I have a question on page 58 and 59 of this bill, which gives the government access to private individual bank accounts at their free will." (What?) As McCaskill noted on TODAY, "There are just so many people who are hearing things that aren't just true." Still, McCaskill said she was proud of the people who showed up at her town hall. "They don't trust government right now… I get that distrust."

*** And fact-checking Obama: But the president also made some misleading statements of his own at his town hall yesterday. "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had an employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive." But Obama did advocate a single-payer system back in 2003, although since then he has a said a single-payer wouldn't work. Obama also repeated this line: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." However, there is nothing in any bill moving through Congress that would enforce that. (In fact, it's surprising the White House continues to push this line -- there is NO way the government can guarantee that a business won't change health care providers. They just can't.) And then Obama said, "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." But AARP put out a statement yesterday saying that it hasn't officially endorsed any of the bills moving through Congress, although it has said some encouraging words about them.

*** On Obama's performance: As for the president's overall message yesterday, he spent as much time talking about what his health care plan was NOT than he did in talking about what the bill would do. It's clear the White House knows they are on the defensive. There were some strong moments for him on the defensive, as he gave an interesting answer to those worried the government will destroy the private insurance industry when he said the private sector has THRIVED in the mail industry, noting both UPS and FedEx are out-performing the Postal Service. We're guessing there are a few letter carriers around the country who aren't thrilled with THAT comparison this morning. He seemed to deal with the "death panel" rumor well (and invoked Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson's name, which seemed to rattle Isakson politically. (Check out the tone of Isakson's release, which does NOT refute the specific points the president made). The president reiterated his no-tax pledge on the middle class, and he said the pharmaceutical companies have cut a deal worth at least $80 billion in cost cuts but left open the possibility he'd ask for MORE money from them (cue Billy Tauzin's anger?)

Video: While President Obama's town hall in New Hamsphire was relatively quiet, members of Congress have proven less fortunate. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.

*** Obama's town hall vs. the others: One question we're getting: Why was the president's town hall so staid compared with all the other town halls we're seeing? Our theory is the Secret Service. One of us interviewed hundreds of folks who were in the town hall and outside, looking for ANY evidence of town-hall packing -- and we couldn't find any. Perhaps the White House should have attempted to distribute tickets through some GOP groups, like the state party, or Sen. Judd Gregg's office etc. In fact, it seems as if the White House was a tad disappointed they didn't get a moment for the president to confront a critic. The closest the president got was the question from the Maine Republican, who told NBC News that he did NOT vote for Obama. But this man seemed more nervous asking his question about the public option to the president than he did speaking to reporters afterward when he said he wasn't convinced on the public option. What this suggests: How people treat a president is MUCH different than how they'll treat a senator or a member of Congress. It may be a tough reality for a member of Congress to deal with, but it's where we are. 

*** The sign war: By the way, for those wondering, it was a peaceful demonstration on the outside with the pro- and anti-side split about evenly. Interestingly, the PRO-Obama side had more pre-printed signs and we saw evidence of NEA, SEIU, and AFL-CIO organizing. On the anti-side, everything was handmade with many folks telling us they received an email from a friend or friend of a friend to show up.

*** McCaskill vs. Specter: One seems to get it (McCaskill) and one, well, seemed like a deer in headlights (Specter). McCaskill was embracing the opportunity to show off centrist credentials. And trust us, given Missouri's slightly GOP-bent, she's got to flash centrist credentials every chance she gets, even though she's not up for re-election until 2012.  Meanwhile, for a guy preparing for his first re-election as a Democrat in 2010!, Specter seemed to be out of place and behind the times. If Specter doesn't win his primary or general in 2010, many will point to yesterday's performance as one of the key turning points. Talk about a senator who looked like he was on his own island… He gave both Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak material to push their own change message.

Video: Sen. Claire McCaskill talks to TODAY about the heated town hall meeting she held in Missouri.

*** Up close at Cardin town hall: One of us today is going to be heading out to Hagerstown, MD, for a health-care town hall with Sen. Ben Cardin (D). Here's how it will work: Cardin will make opening remarks setting the ground rules and asking for the audience to be respectful. He also will try to address some of the misinformation out there (e.g. end-of-life care). And it will be something of a civics lesson, as Cardin will explain that there are three bills currently going through Congress; that none has been voted on; and that no senator will vote on the most objectionable to some of these folks -- the House bill. Attendees will get blue cards, on which they can write questions, and a moderator from Hagerstown Community College will read some of the questions. This will be Cardin's third town hall focused on health care. But Hagerstown isn't Obama Country: While Obama won Maryland, 62%-36% Washington County (where Hagerstown is located), went for McCain, 56%-43%.

*** 'Disrupting for the sake of disrupting': Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky noted that there has been an uptick in the vocal opposition in the past couple of weeks. She said two weeks ago, the senator held a town hall in Prince George's County that she described as a "tough night, but respectful." But now, she said, the rhetoric has been stepped up and some folks are "disrupting for the sake of disrupting." It's what happened Monday night at a town hall at Towson University, outside Baltimore. Some have even sent e-mails to the local Hagerstown newspaper, Walitsky said, claiming to be from Cardin's office and giving wrong information about the event -- either that it had been canceled or moved or changed times. Cardin's office found out about them only when the paper would call their office to try and verify the fake emails. "There is a more deliberate campaign than coordinated," Walitsky said.

*** Obama's day: At 10:15 am ET, the president and the first lady host a reception for newly minted Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And at 3:10 pm, the Obamas host another reception for Medal of Freedom recipients. The people who won the award include former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former tennis star Billie Jean King, and Sen. Ted Kennedy (although Kennedy won't be in attendance).

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 83 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 447 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails. 
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

"As demonstrators waved signs and shouted across police tape outside, Obama tried to dispel the emotional argument foes have voiced over the airwaves and in local meetings across the country," The Boston Globe writes. "He also fought back on points about costs and fears of a government takeover of the healthcare system. And he argued forcefully that a healthcare overhaul would benefit Americans with insurance as well as those without it by cracking down on insurers and offering alternatives to people who lose their coverage. The campaign-style forum was the first of three town hall meetings the White House has scheduled in upcoming days to hammer back at critics, who have put Democrats on the defensive with demonstrations around the country."

The Washington Post: "As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him 'Obamahdinejad,' in reference to Iran's president. People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. 'Nobama Deathcare!' one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: 'Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.' Images of a protester wearing what appeared to be a gun were shown on television." 

The New York Daily News: "If President Obama wanted to hear from hard-core 'skeptics' of his health care plan here on Tuesday, he could have just stepped outside his town hall meeting. One man carried a sign that read 'Obama Pelosi = Mein Kampf,' a reference to Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitic political treatise. 'Government Healthcare = Death Warrant for Seniors,' read another. Both sides of the health care debate faced off Tuesday outside the Portsmouth High School, site of the town hall. Its main driveway became a loud demilitarized zone: some 250 screaming opponents of Obama's plan on one side, a quieter but equally large group of supporters on the other and a small platoon of cops in between."

The Washington Post's Balz does the "what does it all mean?" analysis today, and ge focuses on the issue of government's size and delves into the need for the president to unveil more of what he supports. "The issue of how much government is too much has crystallized in the health-care debate around the proposal for a public insurance option. Advocates say such a government-run plan would give people more choices and would hold down costs by providing stiffer competition for private insurance companies. Opponents argue that it represents a step toward a government takeover of the health-care system that will limit choice and affect quality of care." 

Also: "[F]or Obama, the choice at this moment may be starker than his Democratic friends anticipated. Has the health-care debate reached a point at which he must make clearer what he regards as essential in a final bill, including the public option? That is likely to become a topic for debate inside the administration in coming weeks." 

The Wall Street Journal sees Obama as a micro-manager. 

A new Gallup poll shows the president has made no progress on his health care ratings. "Americans rate President Barack Obama's handling of healthcare policy essentially the same as they did roughly three weeks ago, remaining slightly more likely to disapprove than approve."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is now running TV ads against Obama on health care. Per the AP, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will begin airing 30-second ads in about 20 states Wednesday criticizing the Democratic proposal to offer optional government health coverage. R. Bruce Josten, who is the chamber's executive vice president, said the multimillion-dollar ad buy would be one of the largest so far critical of President Barack Obama's effort. Opponents this year have been heavily outspent by supporters of Obama's plan. The ads show a balloon being inflated until it bursts. The ad says, 'Big tax increases, huge deficits, expanded government control of health care. Call Congress.' The commercials will be broadcast in Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska and other states with lawmakers whose votes are still considered uncertain."

The L.A. Times tries to sift through the fact and fiction of the health-care debate. It breaks down the following:
-- Does the legislation include provisions to encourage senior citizens to commit suicide? (Answer: No.)
-- Will the government start paying for abortions? (Answer: Unclear -- though "Neither House nor Senate versions of the healthcare legislation contains any requirement that federal funding be made available for abortions.")
-- Will illegal immigrants receive free healthcare benefits? (Answer: No.)
-- Will the government ration care? (Answer: "This is almost impossible to say, although if the legislation passes there may be less 'rationing' than there is now.)

Obama for President … of Afghanistan? Afghan challengers are channeling Obama. One -- Dr. Abdullah Abdullah -- has created a Web site called www.change-hope.com and another -- Ashraf Ghani -- created a campaign Web video "not only promises 'hope for change,' but features an image and quote of President Barack Obama opposing a Karzai policy."

The two Kansas Republican senators -- Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts have put a hold on GOP Rep. John McHugh's nomination as Secretary of the Army. Politico: "Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told POLITICO: 'The secretary is very disappointed. We are fighting two wars at once, and the service that is bearing the biggest burden is the Army. So it needs and deserves this leadership… We are anxiously awaiting the arrival of Congressman McHugh.'"

"The senators boasted about their maneuver in a joint news release last week: "U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) placed legislative 'holds' on key administration appointees to the Departments of Defense and Justice until they receive answers from the White House regarding recent press reports that decisions have been made to locate Guantanamo Bay detainees in Leavenworth, Kan." 

"Senate Democratic leaders are driving home a handful of key points during this month's town hall forums on healthcare: Reform will be fully funded, will not jeopardize current doctor-patient relationships, and is the only alternative to the current, broken system. A set of talking points, 'Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform,' were obtained by The Hill and represent an effort to push back against conservative critics and activists. The four-page series of talking points is also intended to arm senators against the questions they are most likely to face during this month's forums.

Of the disruptions, Specter said these folks are "not necessarily representative of America," but should be heard.  'It's more than health care,' said Specter, 79, who earlier this year left the Republican Party and became a Democrat. 'I think there is a mood in America of anger with so many people unemployed, with so much bickering in Washington ... with the fear of losing their health care. It all boils over.'"

The Times on the Specter town hall: "Many said they heard about the meeting from e-mail alerts sent by conservative and antitax groups like the Constitutional Organization of Liberty and the Berks County Tea Party, along with Mr. Specter's own mailings. Some voiced sentiments that were heard recently on conservative radio shows, though those interviewed said they resented being characterized as mobs or puppets of lobbyists, emphasizing that they represented only themselves. 'I demand my voice!' read one sign outside. 'You work for me,' was a refrain yelled inside the auditorium." 

Who's behind it? "To help bolster its messaging at a time when Democrats have turned their rhetoric against health insurers, the industry has stepped up its already active grass-roots operations including the Campaign for an American Solution, which reached out to Archibald. The campaign is run by America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurers' main lobbying group. AHIP has 1,300 member companies, and the group is sending out talking points and working to mobilize those companies' employees, policy-holders and other like-minded people to spread the word. On the ground in Lebanon, AHIP relied on the local expertise of a public affairs firm called the Bravo Group, which has offices in Harrisburg and Philadelphia." But they say the rowdiness gets in the way, that their folks want to have a respectful dialogue.

"Centrist Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) has launched a television ad in his home state to defend himself from liberal groups attacking him on healthcare reform," The Hill reports. "In the ad, Nelson puts forward his 'principles' for a healthcare bill but does not offer a position on whether legislation should include an option for a public insurance plan. Nelson's reluctance to support the public option is one reason liberal groups have been pressuring him."

And: "Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) announced Tuesday he underwent successful surgery for early-stage prostate cancer and is recovering ably. The senator's office said Dodd will remain hospitalized at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York for 'a few days.'"

"Thousands of pages of internal e-mail and once-secret Congressional testimony showed Tuesday that Karl Rove and other senior aides in the Bush White House played an earlier and more active role than was previously known in the 2006 firings of a number of United States attorneys," the New York Times says. 

The Washington Post: "The dismissal of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico in December 2006 followed extensive communication among lawyers and political aides in the White House who hashed over complaints about his work on public corruption cases against Democrats, according to newly released e-mails and transcripts of closed-door House testimony by former Bush counsel Harriet Miers and political chief Karl Rove."

More: "House Judiciary Chairman John M. Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) on Tuesday characterized the role of Bush White House figures in the firing of Iglesias and eight other U.S. attorneys as improper. 'Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing U.S. attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horse-trading, and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the U.S. attorney corps -- that of U.S. attorney Iglesias -- because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections,' Conyers said."

"In a statement Tuesday, Rove asserted that he 'never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution' and did not decide which prosecutors were fired. He also accused Democrats of making 'false accusations and partisan innuendoes.'"   

So add Rick Santorum to the list of 2012 GOP candidates? Apparently so. (Just askin': Can a guy who lost Pennsylvania -- a battleground state -- by almost 60%-40% be a presidential contender?)

NEVADA: "Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) has decided not to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2010, according to a source with knowledge of Heller's decision."

NEW JERSEY: While it's not clear that New Jersey voters are ready to hear a counter-argument about anything from Jon Corzine, he has more material in his attempt to tie GOP nominee Chris Christie to Bush -- thanks to testimony from Karl Rove that the one-time GOP political mastermind would occasionally chit-chat with Christie about his political future.  

In an interview yesterday with the Newark Star-Ledger, Karl Rove confirmed that he had spoken with Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie about running in 2009. "I talked to him twice in the last couple of years…not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for governor." 
 
By the way, if Obama is only at 56% for his job approval in New Jersey, Corzine better look for some new coattails to grasp on.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Sen. Johnny Isakson isn't taking too kindly to being mentioned by President Obama at his town hall today.

Isakson's office sent out a hot press release with the screaming headline: "Isakson Denounces White House Comments Connecting Him To Terribly Flawed House Health Care Bill."

Isakson, in an interview with the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, denounced Palin's assertion that there was a provision on "death panels," as "nuts."

So what gives?

Isakson takes issue, it appears, with Obama connecting him to the HOUSE version. He pushed for a similar amendment in the SENATE. He said in his release "he strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions."

That's certainly a difference in tone than what he told Klein.

Here's what he told Klein, followed by his press release and Obama's comments at the town hall:

How did this become a question of euthanasia?
I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.
It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.
Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

Isakson's release:

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today denounced comments made by President Obama and his spokesman regarding Isakson's alleged connection to language contained in the House health care bill on "end-of-life counseling."

Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct "end-of-life counseling" with Medicare patients every five years. Isakson also strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions.

By contrast, Isakson took a very different approach in July during the Senate HELP Committee hearings on the Senate version of the health care bill. Isakson's amendment to the Senate bill says that anyone who participates in the long-term care benefit provided in the bill – if they so choose – may use that benefit to obtain assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney.

Isakson's amendment, which was accepted unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Senate HELP Committee, empowers the individual to make their own choices on these critical issues, rather than the government incentivizing doctors to conduct counseling on government-mandated topics. Isakson ultimately voted against the Senate health care bill.

"This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don't read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies.  I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats' bill.  I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies," Isakson said.  "My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice."

Here's what Obama said today:

It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican -- then House member, now senator, named Johnny Isakson from Georgia -- who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people's options. And somehow it's gotten spun into this idea of "death panels." I am not in favor of that. So just I want to -- (applause.) I want to clear the air here.

Now, in fairness, the underlying argument I think has to be addressed, and that is people's concern that if we are reforming the health care system to make it more efficient, which I think we have to do, the concern is that somehow that will mean rationing of care, right? -- that somehow some government bureaucrat out there will be saying, well, you can't have this test or you can't have this procedure because some bean-counter decides that this is not a good way to use our health care dollars. And this is a legitimate concern, so I just want to address this.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
The House Judiciary Committee today released over 700 pages the interview transcripts with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers regarding the panels investigation of the Bush White House's removal of nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006. The committee also released thousands of pages of internal e-mails.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers said in a statement: "This basic truth can no longer be denied: Karl Rove and his cohorts at the Bush White House were the driving force behind several of these firings, which were done for improper reasons." 

Accompanying the release of the documents, the committee included some "new facts" in the case, among them.... (the following is directly from the committee's statement which is on their Web site):

2005 White House "Decision" to fire David Iglesias -
It has previously been known that New Mexico Republicans pressed for Iglesias to be removed because they did not like his decisions on vote fraud cases. New White House documents show that Rove and his office were involved in this effort no later than May 2005 (months earlier than previously known) - for example, in May and June 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent emails to Tim Griffin (also in Rove's office) asking "what else I can do to move this process forward" and stressing that "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY." In June 2005, Harriet Miers emailed that a "decision" had been made to replace Iglesias. At this time, DOJ gave Iglesias top rankings, so this decision was clearly not just the result of the White House following the Department's lead as Rove and Miers have maintained.

Iglesias criticized by Rove aide for not "doing his job on" Democratic Congressional Candidate Patricia Madrid
An October 2006 email chain begun by Representative Heather Wilson criticized David Iglesias for not bringing politically useful public corruption prosecutions in the run up to the 2006 elections. Scott Jennings forwarded Wilson's email to Karl Rove and complained that Iglesias had been "shy about doing his job on Madrid," Wilson's opponent in the 2006 Congressional race. Just weeks after this email, Iglesias' name was placed on the final firing list.

An "agitated" Rove pressed Harriet Miers to do something about Iglesias just weeks before Iglesias was placed on the removal list
Karl Rove phoned Harriet Miers during a visit to New Mexico in September 2006 - according to Miers' testimony, Rove was "agitated" and told her that Iglesias was "a serious problem and he wanted something done about it."

From NBC's Mark Murray
So how do we square the contentious town halls that Arlen Specter (D) and Claire McCaskill (D) held today, versus the much more polite one hosted by President Obama in New Hampshire?

Did Obama stack the deck with supporters? (The White House insists it didn't, and Obama did go out of his way to solicit tough questions.) Or are people just nicer in New Hampshire? Or does the office of the presidency command respect -- even from political opponents?

Whatever the reason, the nine questions that Obama received at his town hall didn't resemble anything that we've seen over the past few days.

Perhaps the president set the tone early when he acknowledged the "long and vigorous debate" the country is having over health care. "That is what America is about," he said. "That is why we have a democracy."

But, he added, "I hope we will talk with each, and not over each other... Let's disagree over the things that are real," not the things that aren't.

Some other takeaways from Obama's town hall today:
-- as we previewed, the president contended how health-care reform would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to those who have pre-existing medical conditions, and he had tough words for the insurance industry. "I don't think health insurance bureaucrats should be meddling."
-- he opened his remarks discussing the stimulus and argued how it is helping the economy. "There is no doubt that the Recovery Act has helped put the breaks on this recession."

From NBC's Michelle Perry
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley sought to clarify Secretary Clinton's angry outburst yesterday in the Congo, when she was responding to what she thought was a question from a student asking about her husband's view on a trade deal.

Crowley said she was responding to the question as it was posed to her in the English translation and that she was perhaps angered by the hint of chauvinism in the question.

"It's important to understand the context here," Crowley said, "that, you know, one of -- an abiding theme that she has in her trip to Africa is empowering women.
As the question was posed to her, it was posed in a way that said: 'I want to get the views of two men, but not you, the Secretary of State.' And I think it -- obviously, she reacted to that."

He added her reaction was part of her larger concern for women's rights in Africa.

"I think it's part of something that she is obviously very passionate about," Crowley said, "which is making sure that if -- that the role of women in the agricultural sector, in the political sector, in civil society, if Africa's going to advance in the future, the role of women has to be, you know, more significant in the continent than it is today."

Crowley said at the end of Clinton's town hall in Congo, Clinton and the student spoke and he didn't think there were any "hard feelings."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
If you just can't wait for the 2012 Iowa Republican primary, Craig Robinson, the former political director for the state GOP, ranks the contenders on his site The Iowa Republican. It's waaaaay early, but here's how Iowa GOPers are starting to see the field:

1. Huckabee (who won it last time): "Looking ahead to 2012, Huckabee will have to deal with something new if he seeks the Republican nomination for president -- expectations. No longer will Huckabee be the underdog, meaning, the national media will be looking to see how much money he has raised and what type of organization he is building in the early states."

2. Palin: "One thing is for certain, if she does run for President, she is going to have to explain why she could not complete one term as Alaska's Governor. While people tend to favor candidates who have been governors, Palin not finishing one term could haunt her for the rest of her political career."

3. Romney: "The national political pundits all have Mitt Romney occupying the top spot on their 2012 presidential lists, but for the man who invested millions of dollars in Iowa during his 2008 presidential run, Romney hasn't stepped foot in Iowa since right before the last general election, and even that event was very low key."

4. Gingrich: Appears to be Robinson's dark horse: "In addition to being the idea guy in the race, Gingrich might be the only candidate on this list who has shown the willingness and tenacity to go on the offensive against President Obama's agenda day in and day out. If he runs in 2012, he is the one to watch."

5. Pawlenty: "Pawlenty has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration. He has come out against the cash for clunkers plan and has also been an early critic of Obama's health care proposal. The well-spoken Pawlenty should also do well in the neighboring state of Iowa, and it's also likely that many Iowans in the northern part of the state have seen him on the local news or watched his campaign ads in the past."

The rest: 6. Haley Barbour; 7. John Thune; 8. Rick Perry; 9. Bobby Jindal; 10. Mike Pence/Other House Member

(And here's what we wrote about the Curse of 2012 for some of these candidates.)

From NBC's Ron Allen
Outside the event where President Obama will conduct his town hall, there is an anti-Obama protestor with a gun -- a pistol strapped to his lower leg.

The local police chief said it's legal for the man to have a registered handgun -- as long as it is not concealed. What's more, he is on private property, a church yard, which has given him permission to be there.

*** UPDATE *** More on the man with the gun... William Kostric is a married man in his mid 30S who works in sales. He says he moved here to New Hampshire from Arizona about a year ago, because it's a "live free or die" state -- and he thought Arizona was becoming too restrictive with its gun laws.

He's passing out a bookmark that says, "Join the Second Amendment Revolution, the most exciting pro-liberty movement in over 200 years."

He's a Ron Paul supporter, who opposes just about everything Obama, including health care reform.

The local police say he is within his rights to carry a handgun openly under state law. He was carrying a 9-mm Smith and Wesson strapped to his lower leg.

Police say he's OK on a public sidewalk. Kostric says he has permission from a church just down the street from the high school to be on its private property.

He says he was approached by a "detective," possibly a Secret Service Agent, who told him he could be arrested within 1,000 feet of a school with a weapon under a federal law. Kostric moved back to private property.

When Obama arrived, the police had Kostric under surveillance. A local police captain said the Secret Service has been "in the loop."

Kostric has been about 50 to 75 yards from the entrance to the high school, since about 11:00 am ET, doing interviews and carrying a sign and his gun and police have had their eye on him. But as long as he's been "cooperative," they have watched, but let him be.

From NBC's Scott Foster and Mark Murray
The White House is trying to push back against any perception that today's town hall in New Hampshire will consist of only Democrats and Obama supporters.

Here is a part of a backgrounder it just released:

Like nearly every other town hall the White House has hosted, the vast majority of the tickets were available to the public via a website where people could register for the opportunity to receive tickets to attend the town hall. The remaining tickets were distributed by the White House to elected officials, community leaders, etc.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Foreign policy got its hands on a list of congressional delegations, or CODELS, over the August recess, which it published Thursday. And check out how many members are bringing spouses along.

Heading with their spouses to Ireland, Switzerland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China and Canada for two weeks: Reps. John Boehner (R-OH), Dan Boren (R-OK), Jo Bonner (R-AL), Dave Camp (R-MI), Tom Latham (R-IA), Greg Walden (R-OR).

Heading with their spouses to the U.K., Turkey, Egypt, Greece and Italy for a week: Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Susan Davis (D-CA), John Carter (R-TX), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Charlie Dent (R-PA).

[***UPDATE*** Congressman McCaul's office contacted First Read to let us know that this trip was canceled some time ago, and that this was a preliminary list.]

Heading with their spouses to Germany, Italy and Spain for a week: Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), John Duncan (R-TN), Harold Rogers (R-KY), Tim Holden (D-PA), Henry Brown (R-SC), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Vern Buchanan (R-FL).

Heading with spouses to the United Kingdom: Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Each spouse is listed as "No-cost to DoD." In other words, there are likely extra seats on the military planes that fly these members around the globe. And the questions become: Is there extra cost for them to stay in hotels? How do they pay for their meals? What excursions do they take? And, above all, what are the purposes of these trips in the first place?

Foreign Policy has the following reasons from its unconfirmed itinerary:

For Boehner's trip: "To discuss issues of mutual interest with government and private sector officials on issues related to global and regional economic performance and energy security."

For Cuellar's trip: "To investigate the critical security measures in place within these countries."

For Leahy's trip: To "conduct official British-American Parliamentary Group meetings."

For Costello's trip: "To meet with State and local officials to discuss port security and aviation maintenance issues."

Note, there are other trips -- McCain's and Kerry's, for example -- in which spouses don't tag along. Foreign Policy says that's "one sign the trip is tough."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
For some context on the Arlen Specter's lively Pennsylvania town hall that we are seeing live on MSNBC, it is taking place in Lebanon County, a solidly Republican County in a Democratic state.

Lebanon County, in Central-Eastern Pennsylvania, voted overwhelmingly for John McCain in 2008, 59%-40% -- despite Barack Obama winning the state overall 54%-44% -- the highest percentage achieved by a Democrat in Pennsylvania since LBJ in 1964. Going all the way back to 1960, this county has never voted for a Democrat.

The county does fall in the 17th congressional district, which is represented by DEMOCRAT Tim Holden, who was elected in 1992. 
 
Some Lebanon history as GOP county:
In 2004, it voted 67%-33% for Bush.
In 2000, it voted 62%-35% for Bush.
In 1996, it voted 54%-35% for Dole.
In 1992, it voted 50%-21% for Bush.
In 1988, it voted 67%-33% for Bush.
In 1984, it voted 72%-28% for Reagan.
In 1980, it voted 69%-23% for Reagan.
In 1976, it voted 63%-35% for Ford.
In 1972, it voted 77%-21% for Nixon.
In 1968, it voted 64%-28% for Nixon.
In 1964, it voted 53%-47% for Goldwater.
In 1960, it voted 68%-32% for Nixon.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Obama's own town hall: No group of Americans takes the idea of town-hall meetings with politicians more seriously than New Hampshire residents do. And with rage at town halls all the, well, rage, President Obama's health-care town hall in Portsmouth at 1:00 pm ET today could become quite the spectacle. About a year ago, Obama traveled up to Unity, NH to hold his first campaign event with Hillary Clinton after she ended her presidential campaign. But as Obama heads back to New Hampshire today for his first event in the Granite State since becoming president, he's finding unity on health care to be much more elusive than reconciliation with Hillary or her supporters ever proved to be. Given enough time, most PUMAs were going to come around. But the same can't be said for Republicans and conservatives who are intent on defeating any type of health-care reform this year. By the way, the White House might catch a break regarding protesters today. Why? The weather… It's not just raining; it's pouring as of 8:45 am…

*** Focusing on pre-existing conditions: Per the White House, Obama plans to focus his remarks on health INSURANCE reform, emphasizing how his bill -- when it comes together -- will guarantee more protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. In fact, on TODAY this morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president will be introduced at the town hall by someone who was "discriminated against" because of pre-existing conditions. The DNC is reinforcing this message with a new TV ad (to air on DC and national cable) that says, "President Obama's plan will end unfair insurance practices, like denying coverage for a pre-existing condition." Also in his remarks today, don't be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to address the tone of the debate, which is the elephant in the room (no pun intended). This is a critical week for the president to somehow take the attention away from the town halls with other members of Congress. By holding three of his own between now and Saturday, he just might do that…Then again, he can't afford a fumble this week. The president today has to be able to set the example and become the backbone for congressional Democrats all over the country.

*** Time to send out the punting unit: Both the New York Times and the Washington Post played up Obama's remarks on immigration yesterday as a pledge to take up the issue in 2010. Others, like the L.A. Times, saw it as a political punt. Our take? It was a punt. Honest question: Do you really think immigration is going to be taken up seriously in a midterm election year, especially when Obama lost one of his biggest GOP allies on the issue to resignation (Mel Martinez)? At best, look for INCREMENTAL work on immigration reform. This could be the lesson the White House takes away from health care: on a politically red hot issue, go incremental. On the other hand, if the White House takes up immigration reform next year and the GOP opposes it, could that help Democrats lock in the Latino vote for decades?

*** No longer a toxic matter? The New York Times has a remarkable story about the toxic assets program. It's remarkable because it's UNREMARKABLE -- the program, which was hyped up big time in the spring, hasn't been used and might not ever be used. Was it a waste of political capital for Geithner and the Obama administration? Or by simply having it there as a backstop, did it jump-start the free market? Also, does the administration get credit for it not being used? Or is it not being used because the rules are so stringent? Your answer probably depends on your political persuasion. Bottom line: It's stunning that in August of '09 we have a story in the national paper of record about how the toxic assets program just hasn't been used.

*** "My husband is not the secretary of state": It raised our eyebrows when we first read about Secretary of State Clinton's reaction yesterday in Africa to a question she thought she was getting about her husband. But the video of it is definitely something to see. Here was the question: "We have all heard about Chinese contracts in this country, the interferences from the World Bank about this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton…?" Hillary shot back: "You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. You ask my opinion I will tell you my opinion, I'm not going to be channeling my husband." (As it turns out, the translator apparently screwed up; the questioner meant President Obama, not President Clinton.) Was the reaction a product of jet lag or a sign of tension with some of the attention her husband is receiving of late? On TODAY, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported that it was probably both. Mitchell said it came during the halfway point of a 12-day trip through Africa. But: "She was doing serious stuff, and here she thought she was receiving a question about her husband." Of course, only a Clinton gets psychoanalyzed the way she's being analyzed this morning; it's the burden of the last name.

*** Palin veto gets overturned: One of the bigger ironies in American politics was how a former governor (Sarah Palin) of a state that depends so much on federal largesse (Alaska) later became such an opponent of pork-barrel spending and government assistance. It probably explains why the Alaska Legislature was able to muster the three-quarters vote yesterday to override Palin's veto of $28 million in federal stimulus money for energy cost relief. As the Anchorage Daily News notes, "Reversing a governor's appropriation veto requires a vote of 75 percent of the Legislature, a hurdle rarely met. The override passed 45 to 14 and if a single other legislator had voted against it or been absent from the special session, it would have failed."

*** Remembering Eunice Kennedy Shriver: Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- founder of the Special Olympics and sister to JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy -- passed away at 2:00 am last night. "She was the light of our lives, a mother, wife, grandmother, sister and aunt who taught us by example and with passion what it means to live a faith-driven life of love and service to others," her family said in a statement. It's been a tough year (that might only get tougher) for the Kennedy family. For all the drama the press likes to unearth about the Kennedys, the Shrivers have been drama-free. And no one can take away the fact what Shriver did for the mentally disabled and for parents of children who are mentally challenged. The Special Olympics is the type of gift wealthy Americans or children/siblings of means wish they could create or invent. It truly is one of the more remarkable programs and a legacy that would matter whether her last name was Kennedy or Shriver or Jones or Smith.

*** Remembering Cantor's town halls: By the way, remember Eric Cantor's National Council for a New America? Well, we certainly haven't since it launched last spring. Now Politico writes that it has "flamed out." From the article: "Since its launch, the National Council hasn't held a single public event, despite more than 5,000 invitations to take their show out on the road. Congressional ethics rules limit what Cantor can do with the group because he launched it from his leadership office, making it harder to organize events and recruit partners. Despite that caution, the group is still taking heat from outside watchdog groups that argue he is violating the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of those rules." Is part of the problem that Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, prominent at the launch, haven't stepped up as private citizens?

*** 2009 watch: A new Quinnipiac poll shows that vulnerable New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine has made up a little ground on Chris Christie (R). Corzine now trails Christie by nine points, 51%-42%; last month, the deficit was 12 points, 53%-41%. Still, it's never a good situation for the incumbent to be stuck in the low 40s…

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 84 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 448 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

President Obama's town hall in New Hampshire today, the AP says, "seeks to shift focus onto those who are already insured and explain what the overhaul would mean to them. Obama plans to discuss consumer protections he recently laid out, including efforts to end denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions."

The New Hampshire Union-Leader: "If you want to see the President talk about health-care reform at Portsmouth High School today but weren't one of the 1,800 people selected by the White House: good luck. And, if you had plans to drive through the city tomorrow: think again. With thousands of people -- invited guests, protesters and the national media -- expected to swarm the Stone Gymnasium this afternoon, final preparations were under way yesterday. ... Police said only ticketed guests will be allowed onto Andrew Jarvis Drive, the road leading into the school."

The Portsmoth Herald's editorial page: "We know that shouting, bullying and grandstanding are merely sound and fury signifying nothing. So it is with great confidence that we look forward to Tuesday's health care forum with President Obama at Portsmouth High School. If the local citizenry is able to set the tone for tomorrow's town hall meeting then the president will hear thoughtful questions and provide in-depth answers that go beyond sound bites. We have seen coverage of health care town halls in other parts of the country that have degenerated into the worst kind of political debate, where violence and ignorance get the upper hand and nothing is accomplished, nothing learned... Changing our health care system is an enormous undertaking... Change is never easy, especially for a personal issue such as health care but we shouldn't let fear, uncertainty and confusion derail us from talking to each other with civility and respect and doing the right thing."

The Los Angeles Times' Parsons gets to the nut as to why the White House has struggled so far in this debate. "Confusion over what a final healthcare bill will say -- legislation is still being written -- has given Republicans the opportunity to rally opposition, especially at town halls. On the other hand, the vitriol of some critics -- who hanged one congressman in effigy and shouted down Democrats at some gatherings -- has given Democrats a chance to highlight and criticize opposition tactics."

Remember the issue of toxic assets? Well, banks still have them -- and no one's talking about it. In fact, apparently the government has yet to purchase a toxic asset. "The Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally conceived as a program for the government to buy troubled and unsalable mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. But the Treasury has never actually used the program to buy assets, in part because it was faster to invest money directly into the nation's banks and in part because banks have not wanted to sell their problem loans and book the loss in their value."

The New York tabs go nuts with Hillary's response on her thinking she was being asked about what her husband would think about a trade deal. The New York Daily News cover: "Hillary rages at student... Hey, I'm the boss not Bill." 
 
The New York Post cover: Banner headline: "I'M THE BOSS" over a picture of Hillary Clinton pointing at herself.

By the way, just how strange are the political dynamics in Afghanistan? There is talk of creating a chief executive position underneath President Karzai and filling the post with one of Karzai's chief rivals. Apparently, the U.S. is working this angle behind the scenes. "The latest U.S. overtures have focused on Ashraf Ghani, a former finance minister who is challenging Karzai for the presidency. A campaign aide to Ghani said Monday that both Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry and regional envoy Richard C. Holbrooke had made recent visits to explore the idea, a sign that the United States might be interested in an Afghan government with a more technocratic bent."

Roll Call: "Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said Monday evening he would be willing to eliminate from the 2010 Defense spending bill tens of millions of dollars for new passenger jets that have already been approved by the House."

Death panel? Not so much. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a 'death panel.' … Palin and other critics are wrong. Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes."

Roger Simon skewers what he calls the GOP's "rabid" responders -- i.e. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck. On Palin's death panel claim, Simon writes, "In olden times, Palin might have made this claim at a speech or during a news conference where reporters might have asked questions like: 'What proof do you have?' or 'Aren't you just trying to scare people?' But Palin does not risk that. She takes no questions. She has done her duty as a rabid responder. She has rung the tocsin, sounded the alarm, lit the signal fire. Truth? Accuracy? Responsibility? Not her territory… Glenn Beck is a rabid responder on race… Rush Limbaugh is a rabid responder on Nazis and swastikas. He knows a lot about swastikas. He sees them everywhere."

Politico: "Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) generated the kind of buzz other politicians covet when he launched his bid to help rebrand the Republican Party last spring. Television crews and reporters wedged themselves among the crowd of party faithful to cover the National Council for a New America's first event at a packed pizza parlor in an Arlington, Va., strip mall… Since its launch, the National Council hasn't held a single public event, despite more than 5,000 invitations to take their show out on the road. Congressional ethics rules limit what Cantor can do with the group because he launched it from his leadership office, making it harder to organize events and recruit partners. Despite that caution, the group is still taking heat from outside watchdog groups that argue he is violating the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of those rules."

NEW JERSEY: Per the Washington Post, the Republican Governors Association is courting environmentalists and Hispanics, traditional left-leaning Democratic voters in the state. One new TV ad, running on cable stations across the state, says, "The Sierra Club says Jon Corzine has the worst environmental record in New Jersey history." 

NEW YORK: Will some state Dems begin "drafting" Andrew Cuomo to run for governor? The New York Times: "Democrats are concerned that the election prospects of the party's candidates will be undermined with Mr. Paterson prominently on the ticket, as he is hobbled by plunging job-approval ratings and missteps that have raised questions about whether he should even run next year."

VIRGINIA: As we mentioned yesterday, Creigh Deeds (D) launched his abortion rights tour, in an attempt to pain Bob McDonnell (R) as too conservative for the state. The Washington Post: "Deeds's message could energize a Democratic base that has been showing signs of sluggishness since last year's overwhelming victory in the presidential election. It could also chip away at McDonnell's campaign promises that he would focus on education, jobs and transportation if elected governor."

But: "Republicans seized on Deeds's new message, convinced that it will prove to be a strategic blunder for the Democrat to force the difficult social issue into the forefront of the campaign. They say the Deeds push is a departure from the approach of his Democratic successors Mark Warner and Timothy M. Kaine. Neither made such an early, high-profile foray into the topic during their campaigns for governor in 2001 and 2005."

The Deeds camp tells First Read, however, that Kaine ran an advertisement on abortion in 2005, and that the Obama campaign distributed lots of mail on the subject last year.

From NBC's Matthew Samuels and Domenico Montanaro
Republican governors earlier today defended the confrontational crowds seen at dozens of town-hall meetings across the country as being part of the "Democratic process." 

"People are scared, saying my very existence may be threatened," Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle said on a conference call with reporters and other Republican governors, adding, "There are many people who are already satisfied with their health care and want to know what is going to change."

Govs. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Sonny Perdue of Georgia agreed and criticized the administration for rushing through a plan.

"The American people realize that this is too much too fast and too many trillions of dollars," Barbour said. "How come they need to pass this before the August recess? People want their questions answered first." He added that it took Obama six months to pick out a dog, yet is "rushing" health care.

"People do not understand why this is being crammed down their throat without getting their questions answered," Barbour said.

The governors expressed confidence for the 2009 gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. Republican candidates there lead in both races, according to public polling.

"[We are] very excited about '09 races in Virginia and New Jersey," Barbour said. "We have great candidates who are ahead in the polls. They will be close but we like where we are."

Barbour praised Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie as an "outstanding candidate." He added that New Jersey will likely have nothing to do with national politics.

"Chris Christie is ahead in the polls because people in New Jersey look over the last four years Corzine has been governor and have not liked what he has done," Barbour said.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
This morning, we showed you some of the numbers we crunched on Senate races and how historically the Senate shift is much narrower than for the House in a president's first mid-term.

Charlie Cook, one of THE smartest guys in the business on this, wrote us after we published arguing that it might be a better measure not to include, for example, 1946 -- Truman's first mid-term election after assuming the presidency a year earlier when FDR died.

"The way I look at it, it is a party's first midterm election after taking office, or if a party holds onto the White House after eight years (e.g. 1988), the next midterm election," Cook writes. "I don't make a distinction between the Kennedy and Johnson elections; Johnson simply carried over the Kennedy Administration, agenda, etc. So by my reckoning, 1966 is a second-term, midterm election. Part of it is being a purist, the other part is that making exceptions creates more problems. It's rather extraordinary for a new president to win the kind of election (37 House seats gained) that LBJ/Dems did in 1964 (in part due to Kennedy's death), thus setting Dems up for huge 1966 midterm (47 House seats) losses. It bends the numbers a lot."

When you take those out -- '46, '66 and '74 -- The Cook Report finds an even lower average loss of 0.4 seats for the president's party from the prior year.

If you take out 1946 and 1974, and include 1966 and calculate from the prior election year (not the previous Congress), the average loss is 1.3. Not a big difference. Point is, the historical trend for the Senate does not hold as compared to the House.

Here are the numbers with '66, but not '46 or '74 (from the previous election cycle):
1954: Eisenhower -1 (48 senators in 1952 to 47 in 1954)
1962: Kennedy +3 (64 in 1960 to 67 in 1962)
1966: Johnson -4 (68 in 1964 to 64 in 1966)
1970: Nixon +2 (42 in 1968 to 44 in 1970)
1978: Carter -3 (61 in 1976 to 58 in 1978)
1982: Reagan +1 (53 in 1980 to 54 in 1982)
1990: H.W. Bush -1 (45 in 1988 to 44 in 1990)
1994: Clinton -10 (57 in 1992 to 47 in 1994)
2002: W. Bush +1 (50 in 2000 to 51 in 2002)
Avg. Loss: 1.3

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
We referenced the Rep. Bob Inglis town hall, in which he gets booed for telling people to turn off Glenn Beck, in First Thoughts this morning.

Here's the video [hat tip: Newsbusters via TV Newser]:

[YouTube:2fGZATm4HkE] 

Inglis is clearly frustrated, trying to get control of the meeting. Note the shouts of "I'm afraid of Obama" and "We're all afraid of Obama ... he's a socialist." (Lots more at the Newsbusters post about what Inglis said in a follow-up interview, including that Walter Cronkite "would've been fired on the spot" had he called the president racist. And: "The America that Glenn Beck seems to see is a place where we all should be fearful, thinking that our best days are behind us. It sure does sell soap, but it sure does a disservice to America.")

And catch this line from OK-1 Rep. John Sullivan [hat tip: Tulsa World via ThinkProgress]:

"This is a scary time in Washington. It's a very frightening time. I see Barack Obama is creating an enemies list of people who oppose this miserable health care plan. I think that's frightening. That's from a guy that can't even show a long-form birth certificate. I think we all ought to be prepared to fight that." He added, "Everyone demonizes the other side. We need to all sit down and focus on these vital issues. That's the only way we can address these very, very tough issues."

The so-called "enemies list" is apparently a reference to the White House soliciting "fishy" information on health care, so it can knock it down.

From NBC's Richard Engel and Madeleine Haeringer
A spokesman for the commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, tells NBC News that the Wall Street Journal's headline and lead "go too far."

Today, under the headline "Taliban Now Winning," the Journal writes: "The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home."

But McChrystal's spokesman categorically DENIES that the general said the Taliban is winning.

"The general did NOT say the Taliban is gaining the upper hand," he said.

The spokesman said the general did say there is an aggressive enemy -- and that they are launching complex attacks. But he does not agree that the "Taliban are winning."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** The battle for the Senate: Last week, we wrote that Republicans have history, the map, and the political winds on their side when it comes to next year's House races. But the first two definitely AREN'T advantages when it comes to the 2010 Senate contests. Since the end of World War II, the president's party has lost an average of just 2.6 Senate seats in that president's first midterm, compared with 26 House seats. The worst showing for the president's party was in 1946, when the Democrats lost 12 Senate seats. The second-worst showing was in 1994, when they lost 10 seats. The president's party's best showing came in 1962, when it gained three seats. In short, the party in control of the White House is much more likely to lose House seats in the midterms than it is Senate seats.

*** Democrats have the map advantage: What's more, as we head into next year, the map certainly isn't on the GOP's side. Currently, Democrats have a 60-40 advantage in the Senate (with two independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, caucusing with the Dems). So Republicans will need to win 11 Senate seats to take back control of the chamber. But much of the 2010 Senate battleground will be fought on GOP turf. For starters, there are 19 Republican-held seats this cycle, versus 18 Democrat-held seats. More importantly, there are already six GOP-held open seats (FL, KS, KY, MO, NH, OH) -- and there will be seven if/when Kay Bailey Hutchison leaves her seat to run for Texas governor -- while Democrats have two (DE and IL). To put the GOP's challenge with this map into perspective, the Cook Political Report identifies six toss-up contests (in CT, IL, KY, MO, NH, and OH), but even if Republicans win them all, they'll net just two Senate seats. Of course, that would be enough to end the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority, but it wouldn't be close to getting back control of the Senate.

*** Focus on Missouri and Ohio: Without a doubt, the two biggest Senate battlegrounds next year will be in the Show Me State and Buckeye State, and they'll give us a good read on the health of the two political parties. If the Democrats lose both, it will suggest that the party's successes in these states from 2006-2008 -- including gubernatorial and senatorial wins in both states, as well as Obama winning in Ohio and narrowly losing in Missouri -- might have come to an end. But if Republicans lose both -- with well-known figures from Bush years at the top of the ticket (Roy Blunt in Missouri and Rob Portman in Ohio) -- that would suggest that the Bush and GOP brands are still major problems for the party. Bottom line: The best way to judge who "wins" or "loses" the 2010 midterms will be in these two states, pure and simple. And they will be the most dominant races the media will focus on next year.

*** White House fights back: Another weekend, another spate of health-care debate nuttiness. The debate -- not the issue itself -- is now the story. Think about that... In fact, that may explain why it appears the White House is losing the message war. It is trying to fight back by unveiling two campaigns. One is a truth squad of sorts via the White House Web site. It's easily the most aggressive Web effort by any White House to date. Meanwhile, on the political front, the DNC is asking supporters to flood congressional district offices to voice their support for health-care reform. This is a big test for the Obama political machine, because one thing that has gotten lost in this debate over town hall protests: how the Obama supporters have been out-organized so far. 

*** When Bob Inglis is getting booed…: But is there a point at which Republicans will overplay their hands on these town halls? While most Republican leaders (both official and unofficial) are standing by these protests and even encouraging them, a few are letting their own frustration show. Conservative GOP Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, went off on Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs for their tone. And what happened next? Inglis got booed out of his own town hall. The South Carolina Republican is not going to be someone who will support the president on any domestic policy. But if a Bob Inglis is getting fed up, how many other Republican elected officials will crack? And while the Obama White House is losing the message war on health care itself, it does seem to be getting traction with the media on a closer look at how these town halls are playing. And let's face it: Death threats, effigies, and swastikas usually don't help you on the PR front.

*** Obama's own town hall: By the way, it will be interesting to see what happens when President Obama holds his own town hall in Portsmouth, NH, tomorrow. One of us got our hands on an invitation from a conservative group planning a protest outside of Tuesday's venue. "There will be news media from all over the world at this event," the invitation reads, "and it will be the ideal opportunity for us to tell the rest of the country exactly how NH voters feel about Obamacare (taxed/rationed healthcare)." If anything, we'd bet some inside the White House are hoping for a confrontation, since they believe the president's demeanor alone will politically play well with the folks they care about most about right now: ACTUAL independents. 

*** Trouble in Afghanistan: Lost in all of this town-hall chaos is the very real problem developing in Afghanistan. It appears it's not a matter of IF U.S. commanders on the ground are going to ask for more troops but WHEN. This isn't going to be a very popular decision if Obama finds himself sending more troops. Right now, he may be asked for as few as another 10,000 to as many as 40,000 more. The Taliban apparently has made a LOT of inroads in Afghanistan, so much so, that the Wall Street Journal has this very scary headline today: "Taliban Now Winning."

*** What if government was the solution? Turning to the recent good economic news, a narrative is becoming to develop that the government rescued the country from a second Great Depression. While saying it's still too early to know for sure, the New York Times' David Leonhardt wrote on Saturday that "the evidence is now pointing pretty strongly in one direction: history books may conclude that the financial crisis of 2008 turned out to be far less bad than it could have been and that Washington deserved much of the credit." Adds Paul Krugman today: "Ronald Reagan was wrong: sometimes the private sector is the problem, and government is the solution." The debate over Obama's stimulus is still unsettled, but we have noticed that Republicans are no longer criticizing (or at least as much) the bank bailouts. Just askin', but if government was part of the solution to the country's economic woes, what does that mean for 1) the health-care debate and 2) the Republican Party?

*** Over the top? On Friday, Sarah Palin made this posting on her Facebook page regarding Obama's health-care plans: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." Palin didn't cite anything from a bill, but rather a floor speech by Michelle Bachmann, which itself didn't quote from the House bill directly. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports that when President Obama was told of Palin's comment, he said it was "unproductive" for Republican leaders to spread this kind of misinformation, according to a senior administration official. 

*** Is Creigh Deeds done? No, he's not done, but he sure is acting like a candidate who might be panicking just a bit. He's doing something that no Virginia Dem (Warner, Kaine or Webb) has done recently: He's deciding to wade into the culture war issue of abortion. This may have worked for Doug Wilder back in 1989, when it looked like the issue of abortion would find its way back to the states or be debated in the courts, etc. But how much do average abortion-rights supporters think they're under siege right now? Do casual voters in Northern Virginia really think abortion rights will get overturned now that Democrats control Congress and the White House? This appears to be the opposite strategy of Virginia Dems in recent elections, which was to avoid some of these red-hot culture war issues. Just how bad are Deeds' numbers with women and in Northern Virginia?

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 85 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 449 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.