From NBC's Libby Leist
Secretary of State Clinton defended President Obama's decision on missile defense saying, "This decision was not about Russia it was about IRAN and the threat its ballistic missile program poses."

She said the change proposed by Obama will deploy missile defense sooner - a "stronger and smarter approach."

She made the comments during a speech at the Brookings Institution, previewing next week's session of the U.N. General Assembly.

*** UPDATE *** Clinton said there will be accompanying costs for "Iran's continued defiance," which will lead to more isolation and economic pressure, making less of a possibility for progress for the people of Iran.

Clinton said the Obama administration "clearly displayed our readiness to engage" with Iran. But since June, Iran has engaged in politically motivated arrests, show trials and is standing in the way of the progress it seeks. Clinton said, "Nevertheless the U.S. stands ready" to engage. But she added, "We have no appetite for talks without action."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Health-care forecast -- lots of Snowe: It appears that Senate Finance Committee Democrats have gotten the message from the White House: Do whatever it takes to get Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe on board. She's sending EVERY signal that she'll be there at the end, as long as she gets a large say in how the bill is shaped. Snowe yesterday releasing a statement with three moderate Dems (Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and McCaskill) tells you she is looking for a way to support the bill -- not oppose it. And if the White House and Dems get Snowe, suddenly her Maine colleague, Susan Collins, is probably in play too. But remember: This isn't about getting Snowe and Collins; it's about making sure the White House can get Nelson and other moderate-conservative Dems like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Mary Landrieu. Clearly, the White House wants to do this with 60 votes and avoid reconciliation. The entire strategy appears to be predicated on 60.

*** Boy, that was fast: Speaking of 60… Democrats now seem to be well on their way toward getting their 60th Senate vote back, by maybe next week. The Boston Globe says that in Massachusetts, "House lawmakers approved legislation last night that gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late Edward M. Kennedy in the US Senate, putting Massachusetts on track to have a new senator in place by next week… The legislation now goes to the Senate, where top lawmakers believe they have enough votes for it to pass, presuming some supporters do not get cold feet. Republicans, however, vow to use parliamentary maneuvers to stall final passage for as long as possible." The two front-runners to be the interim pick, the Globe says, are former Gov. Michael Dukakis and former DNC Chair Paul Kirk. 

*** The partisan missile war: We know we're never supposed to be surprised by anything in American politics, but the partisan response to the administration's decision yesterday on missile defense was yet another example of how the political debate has eroded in Washington. It's no wonder there is collective disapproval of both congressional Dems and congressional Republicans in the latest Gallup poll. Obviously, the idea of politics stopping at the water's edge disappeared a long time ago as both parties in Congress have violated the credo for years. What made this criticism somewhat surprising was that it's the first time we've seen congressional Republicans unload on a decision that was largely made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The one-time Republican appointee had been somewhat untouchable by many in the mainstream GOP community. As for the ACTUAL decision, the administration is taking pains to claim the benefits in regards to relations with Russia played no role, but it would be naïve not to think they didn't see the benefit that the TIMING wouldn't be beneficial. The ball is in Russia's court now; if they aren't productive allies of the U.S. when it comes to Iran NOW, then maybe these predictions of the return of the Cold War will be truer than we realized. 

*** That '70s Show? Who is going to be the first Republican to call on House Speaker Pelosi to apologize for comparing the protests and opposition that President Obama is receiving to the violence in San Francisco in the '70s? It was a heavy charge, one that is likely going to force the president -- when he's interviewed today by NBC's David Gregory for "Meet the Press," among other interviews -- to probably rebut her. Will the president take it a step further and start calling on everyone to cut out the heated debate OVER political debate? It's one thing for columnists to hand-wring about the state of political discourse. But when it comes from former presidents and sitting speakers, it elevates things to a level that isn't politically helpful for anyone.

*** You be the editor: The House deciding to strip ACORN of federal funding was certainly news yesterday. But ask yourself this: What was more consequential to every day Americans -- the House's vote on ACORN, or it's vote on the larger bill the ACORN measure was stuffed inside, which was an overhaul of student-loan funding in this country? Speaking of, don't miss this quote from conservative Web entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart: "Everybody that is a conservative news junkie thinks that ACORN is the most important institution for us to uncover to the American public."

*** 2009 watch: In Virginia's gubernatorial race, Bob McDonnell (R) has always been the more polished candidate, while Creigh Deeds (D) has been the folksy one. Yesterday's Deeds-McDonnell debate, moderated by NBC's Gregory, made that clear. It also was the candidates' toughest debate yet. The YouTube clip of Deeds after the debate (on taxes) probably isn't helping the candidate much. 

*** 2012 watch: Earlier this year, conservatives gathered in Washington for the annual CPAC conference, which brought us speeches by potential '12 candidates, a '12 straw poll (which Mitt Romney won) and, of course, that memorable image of Rush Limbaugh (dressed in black without a necktie) jumping up and down. Well, there's another conservative confab going on this week in DC -- the Value Voters Summit, sponsored by the Family Research Council. Today, two potential GOP presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee (in the morning) and Tim Pawlenty (evening) address the summit, and a third, Romney, speaks on Saturday. Other GOP speakers today include Mike Pence, Michele Bachmann, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, and former Miss California Carrie Prejean.

*** More on the Value Voters Summit: On Saturday, John Boehner, Romney, and Rick Perry will speak. Also that day will be these breakout sessions: "True Tolerance: Countering the Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools"; "The Threat of Illegal Immigration"; "ObamaCare: Rationing Your Life Away"; "Global Warming Hysteria: The New Face Of The Pro-Death Agenda"; "Speechless -- Silencing The Christians"; "Thugocracy -- Fighting The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy"; "Defunding Planned Parenthood"; and "Activism And Conservatism: Fit to a Tea (Party)."

*** T-Paw turn to the right: Speaking of Pawlenty… He's always been a conservative on the Minnesota scale of things, but he's been sending even more signals to gain notice with the activist conservative base. The local Star-Tribune has noticed the change. "For two terms as governor, Pawlenty worked to cast himself in the public eye as a conservative with one foot planted in the political center -- a strategy that attracted the statewide support crucial to his close wins in Minnesota. Now widely believed to be testing a potential presidential run, Pawlenty is making public statements and taking stands likely to gain him some notice by the conservatives who will determine which candidate will rise from the GOP pack as their nominee." Of the major 2012 players, Pawlenty -- unlike Romney -- has inserted himself into the everyday debate over health care and other issues, which has helped with his name I.D. on the right. Pawlenty, by the way, is the first target of the DNC's new "Call'em Out" campaign intended "to set the record straight on GOP lies, scare tactics and mistruths on health insurance reform and other issues." 

*** Cheney update: Finally, it appears that former Vice President Cheney's surgery went well. Last night, he was having dinner in his hospital room with Mrs. Cheney and expects to be released soon.

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 46 days
Countdown to Primary to Replace Ted Kennedy: 81 days
Countdown to Special Election to Replace Kennedy: 123 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 410 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.

The New York Times on yesterday's missile-defense news: "The new plan that President Obama laid out for a missile shield against Iran on Thursday turns Ronald Reagan's vision of a Star Wars system on its head: Rather than focusing first on protecting the continental United States, it shifts the immediate effort to defending Europe and the Middle East. It is a long way from the impermeable shield that President Reagan described in glowing terms in 1983, an announcement that turned into a diplomatic triumph even while it was a technological flop. Ever since, missile defense has always been more about international politics than about new military technology." 

The AP: "So Obama has torn up the old defense plan and replaced it with one the Pentagon says will be more effective. It's a gamble, but so was the Bush approach."

Yesterday's announcement became an INSTANT political football -- very partisan response on a military/foreign policy issue. In fact, it was the first time that a decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been completely panned, politically, by congressional Republicans.

On day the of the missile defense announcement, an international nuclear agency reported that Iran is close to have a nuclear bomb -- but still struggling on developing a delivery system so they predict they'll overcome that hurdle.  

GOP Rep. Frank Wolf is calling on the president to give a nationally televised speech on Afghanistan to win back public support for the war. He also wants to see the admin create a Iraq Study Group-like commission to help build a policy consensus.

Boos for Baucus: "President Obama's mention of Sen. Max Baucus's healthcare proposal drew boos Thursday at a healthcare rally at the University of Maryland. By contrast, the left-leaning crowd cheered Obama when he endorsed a public health insurance option, which is considered a core provision for liberal lawmakers but is absent from Baucus's (D-Mont.) proposal." 

"President Obama threw a bone to conservative health reform foes on Thursday, rolling out a pilot plan to control malpractice costs," the New York Daily News writes, adding that "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took a first step to making so-called tort reform part of the equation, announcing the feds would spend $25 million on pilot programs aimed at curbing malpractice suits." But Republicans have already criticized it, saying it's not enough.

A new Gallup poll shows that Obama is still getting more credit with trying to be bipartisan, including among independents.

The president did something he does about every six weeks but then never mentions in between -- he pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in front of some key Hispanic leaders.

Attempting to end a civil war before the first shot is fired, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee say they will build a consensus on the health-care reform bill before the first vote is cast, NBC's Ken Strickland reports. And in the process, they hope to attract the support of GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe. "I think there's a view on the part of the chairman and on the part of just about everyone who was there to try to come up with a consensus that every Democrat, and perhaps Olympia Snowe, can support," Sen. Chuck Schumer said following a meeting with his fellow committee Democrats. Schumer said it's Chairman Max Baucus' desire was to get that consensus before the committee starts voting on the bill Tuesday. "We're going to be talking over the weekend," Schumer said.

For Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Strick adds, Thursday night's meeting had a calming effect. "It was a total lack of hostility, people attacking each other and all these kinds of things, which has happened in previous meetings," he said. "There's a feeling in there of 'We're in this together' that I've not known in any other meeting." Rockefeller said Democrats will try come together on handful of amendments on what he called the main issues. "We haven't done it yet, but I felt a will to do it," he said. "We have to be together. You can't get everything you want, but you also can't bring to the floor or out of committee something that isn't a good bill." Still, Rockefeller made it clear he hasn't given up his push for a public option. "There was a lot of good public option talk in there," he said.

The liberal reform group Change Congress has a new TV ad targeting Arkansas Blue Dog Dem Mike Ross. 

The Washington Post: "Lawmakers in both parties raised concerns Thursday that the health-care reform bill offered by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus a day earlier would impose too high a cost on middle-class Americans and said they will seek to change the legislation to ease that potential burden… How to make insurance more affordable to the estimated 30 million uninsured people who would be required to buy coverage under the Baucus proposal is emerging as a central challenge as the long-awaited plan advances to full committee debate Tuesday. Democrats and Republicans alike worry that a bill intended to address one source of financial hardship -- the skyrocketing cost of health care -- could lead to another, in the form of hefty premiums."   

Paul Krugman isn't a fan of the Baucus bill. "There's enough wrong with the Baucus proposal as it stands to make it unworkable and unacceptable. But that said, Senator Baucus's mark is better than many of us expected. If it serves as a basis for negotiation, and the result of those negotiations is a plan that's stronger, not weaker, reformers are going to have to make some hard choices about the degree of disappointment they're willing to live with." 

"Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is putting Democrats in a bind by seeking to let illegal immigrants benefit from the healthcare overhaul. Menendez, the only Hispanic senator, has considerable leverage with Democrats because he may represent the deciding vote on the Senate Finance Committee set to mark up the legislation next week. He's also the party's campaign committee chairman, giving him added influence. Menendez said he is withholding his support for the bill until his concerns about immigration and other matters are addressed. ... Menendez is troubled by that language and has joined Hispanic advocacy groups in criticizing the bill for placing too heavy a burden on legal and illegal immigrants."

Joe Wilson said, "I do believe people should be temperate in their remarks and noncondemning." BUT: "[H]e disagrees with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the nation could take a violent turn if the GOP doesn't tone down its rhetoric in the health care debate." He said, "I disagree very much. These are dear people at town halls and tea parties. They're loving people." More: "In fact, he said, Republicans are not to blame for the people showing up to events with signs likening Obama to Adolf Hitler. 'People should know, the people with the Hitler signs were Democrats. They're with the LaRouche campaign,' said Wilson, referring to former Labor Party presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Added Wilson: 'I will be the first to say that that's not reflective of the Democratic Party.'"
 
And: "Even though it's 'just not right' for Pelosi to suggest that GOP rhetoric could lead to violence, Wilson said he has high regard for Pelosi. 'My wife likes to point out that we shared pasta together in Rome' while they were on a Congressional delegation trip, Wilson said. 'My wife and I have a very warm feeling personally toward Nancy and Paul, her husband. People don't hate her. I hope they don't hate me.'"

The Washington Post profiles the young conservative filmmakers who produced those videos exposing ACORN employees who are apparently encouraging fraud. "O'Keefe insists that he and Giles's work was done independently and rejects liberal suggestions that the videos were bankrolled by conservative organizations. He does, however, acknowledge receiving help and advice from a conservative columnist and Web entrepreneur. When O'Keefe had filmed the first two videos -- in the District and Baltimore -- a friend urged him to share his project with Andrew Breitbart, a conservative Internet entrepreneur who had plans to launch an anti-liberal site called BigGovernment.com."

More: "Breitbart, who also has a column that appears in the Washington Times, advised O'Keefe to roll out the videos one by one, rather than at once. He said he predicted the mainstream media would try to ignore the story, and after a day 'poof, it would be over.' 'When I saw these videos, I couldn't help thinking, this is the Abu Ghraib of the Great Society,' said Breitbart, who put the videos on BigGovernment.com. 'Everybody that is a conservative news junkie thinks that ACORN is the most important institution for us to uncover to the American public.'" 

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour sat down with Washington Times editors and said the states are truly at a potential financial breaking point. "Noting that employment and state revenue 'typically continue to decline 18 months after a recession ends,' Mr. Barbour said states that have already pared their budgets to the bone have nowhere else to cut with more hard times on the horizon. The big bill that Mr. Obama's health care overhaul may present to the states would only add to the burden, he argued."

"'There's nothing about this that is particularly encouraging for state financing, which is why we don't want the federal government to stick us with a huge unfunded mandate for health care reform,' he said. 'Most states can't pay for it but one way, which is raising taxes. We ain't got any money. We don't get to print it like the federales do."

On running for president: "I doubt it."

The DCCC is hitting Republicans who voted against the student-loan overhaul yesterday. It sent out a release to at least 52 GOP members' districts. On NRCC Chair Pete Sessions, it said, "Today, Representative Pete Sessions opposed a common-sense solution that will help Americans compete for the best jobs, by helping families afford college tuition and continue our nation's economic recovery by paying down the national debt… The investments from this measure would make certain that 32nd students in 12,327's Pete Sessions Congressional District are able to receive a Pell Grant Award in 2010-2011." And it points to this chart for how many Pell Grants would be provided in each Congressional district.

MASSACHUSETTS: Massachusetts could hand over power to Gov. Deval Patrick by Wednesday of next week to appoint an interim U.S. Senator to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Last night, the state House passed, by a 95-58 margin, legislation that would give Patrick the authority to make an appointment. The matter now moves to the state Senate, "where top lawmakers believe they have enough votes for it to pass," the Boston Globe reports. But Republicans "vow to use parliamentary maneuvers to stall final passage for as long as possible." Possible candidates to replace Kennedy on an interim basis: former governor Mike Dukakis and former Democratic National Committee chairman/Kennedy Library Chair Paul G. Kirk Jr. 

NEW YORK: A "statewide Marist College survey found voters would narrowly favor [Republican George Pataki] -- 48 percent to 44 percent -- over Gillibrand if the 2010 election were held today. That's an 8-point swing from a similar poll in July, when Pataki, who's reportedly considering a run, trailed the freshman senator, with 42 percent to her 46." 
 
VIRGINIA: On yesterday's debate, the Richmond Times-Dispatch writes, "[T]he debate featured the most pointed and prickly exchanges between the candidates to date… [B]oth men saved their rhetorical firepower for the areas they perceive to be the greatest weakness in their rivals."

The Washington Post adds, "Deeds might have hurt his attempts to appeal to women voters during the same post-debate discussion by making a sharp remark to a female reporter who asked about his plan to pay for road improvements. 'I think I made myself clear, young lady,' said Deeds, though he said it with a smile. The exchange was quickly posted on YouTube and sent out by the state Republican party. Deeds later called to apologize to the reporter, Chelyen Davis of the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star, who said she was not offended by the remark." 

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Members of the Senate Finance Committee met today to talk through some of the details the healthcare bill they'll start voting on next week. And 24 hours after the bill was introduced nothing's really changed: most Republican don't like it, liberal Democrats want the public option in it, and moderate Democrats think it's a good starting point, but won't commit their support.

Sen. John Kerry sized up the Democrats' position best when he talked to reporters after today's meeting. They have to pass a bill.

"Are there some pieces in it I disagreed with? Yes," Kerry said. "And we're going to try and work on those." But he quickly added, "We're going to get a bill done, one way or the other. We will make changes in it.... but we will get a bill out of this committee."

While some Democrats on the panel are clearly unhappy with the bill, the bill pretty much HAS to be passed out of the Finance Committee in order for there to be a health-care reform bill at all. The committee has jurisdiction over taxes and revenue; Medicare and Medicaid; fees and subsidies.

Democrat have a three-vote advantage in committee: 13 to 10. If all the Republicans vote against the final bill, then Democrats can only afford to have one Democrat vote against the bill and have it still pass. If Olympia Snowe (R) votes for the bill, they can afford to lose two Dems... and so on.

So it's hard to imagine a scenario where Democrats kill a bill that is more in line with what the president wants than any other bill moving through Congress.  Democratic aides will privately concede that while some of their liberal members will make a big stink now and offer amendments later to change the bill, at the end of the day, Democrats hold the cards.

Are there ways to pass a health-care bill without a Finance Committee bill? Probably, but it would require procedural jujitsu that would frighten even the master of Senate rules, Sen. Robert Byrd.

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
This morning, we -- and others -- noted how little bipartisan support Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus' health-care bill received. The biggest surprise: Moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe wasn't on board, at least not yet.

Well, now Snowe -- along with Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson, and independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Dems -- are praising Baucus' bill. The four released this statement:

We commend Chairman Baucus for his efforts to forge a health care reform proposal that has the potential to gain broad bipartisan support. We are encouraged by his commitment to work with both Democrats and Republicans in the Finance Committee, and believe there is a responsibility for both sides of the aisle to work together to develop a bill that will earn strong support from the full Senate...

Each of us has an obligation to put aside partisan views and to consider how health care reform addresses the needs and challenges faced by individual citizens and our economy as a whole. While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation. We will continue to work together in the full Senate on bipartisan health care reform that reduces costs, improves care, and expands access. 

So here's where we stand: If these four senators can get behind a bill, Democrats have the potential to get 60-plus votes in the Senate. Then again, the question is whether liberal Democrats in the House and Senate would get behind that legislation. 

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Certainly, the item that most will focus on was the unrelated motion to recommit in the student-loan legislation to de-fund federal funding for ACORN. But the signicant student-loan reform legislation ALSO passed, 253-171.

H.R. 3221 -- Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 -- would essentially "push private lenders out of the federal college loan business and massively expand the government's own lending program," AP wrote today.

More: "Proponents of putting the government in charge of all federal loans say it would save an estimated $87 billion, though this figure has been disputed. The money would boost Pell Grants for needy students and pay for a new college completion fund, community college reforms and more college aid for veterans. ... Yet the money also would be spent on things that don't help pay for college, such as construction at K-12 schools and new preschool programs. And while the measure would increase Pell Grants, it would do nothing to curb college costs, which rise much faster than Pell Grants do." 
 
Earlier this week, one Republican leadership aide described the bill as another "government takeover."

And Republicans are echoed that today.

"Ask yourselves whether another government takeover is what we need right now," said Minnesota Rep. John Kline, senior Republican on the Education Committee, per AP.

The measure now moves on to the Senate.

From NBC's Ken Strickland and Domenico Montanaro
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said he "resents" some of the things the administration and President Obama said and did during the August recess. In particular, Grassley took umbrage with President Obama attaching him to the death panel controversy. He said it was something he "took very personally."

"And [I] kind of resent, that when I've been very candid with the President of the United States face to face... I leveled with him, I leveled with him," Grassley said of his conversations with President Obama. "And then we're accused by [David] Axelrod of making political things and maybe not being serious in our negotiations."

For political observers, this Grassley divorce from the administration and the negotiating table is not surprising. It comes after, in particular, his admission -- in a question posed to him by NBC's Chuck Todd on MSNBC -- that he would not vote for legislation if it didn't have widespread Republican support, even if it had everything he wanted in it.

All along, no one expected more than three or four Republicans to support even the legislation that was being negotiated by the moderate, so-called Gang of Six in the Senate Finance Committee. So Grassley's statement was a marker for analysts that he had opened the door to backing away during a summer of angry town halls fueled by a fired up conservative base.

And on death panels last month, Grassley did lend credence to the idea that the government would "determine if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

"There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life," Grassley said at an Iowa town hall after fielding a question about it from a town hall attendee. "And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

In an impromptu news conference with reporters, Grassley said a major sticking point in negotiations was that Republicans were unable to get a commitment from Senate leaders that any bipartisan bill they passed would not be "obliterated" in the process in conference before final passage. When asked if he sought those assurances directly from the president, it seemed to hit a nerve.

"You know what," he said, "I have not had a face-to-face conversation or a telephone conversation with either the president or anybody on the White House staff since that meeting we had that Thursday" before the summer recess. And then he went on: "And I'll tell you, and there's some things that the president said since then that I took very personally."

Referring to the summer controversy about "death panels," Grassley said, "He gave some speeches during August in which he was associating me with efforts to make this a political document and efforts that other people in the country were making to give extremes, like on the end-of-life situation and associating me with things -- I [never] used the words he said.

He told reporters he had 31 meetings with the Gang of Six; nine day-long Finance Committee health-care "walk through" sessions; and 156 health-care meetings with constituents and senators in his office.

"And if that isn't evidence enough that we were serious enough... and then being accused of being political in the month of August, when I didn't say anything different in Iowa than I've been saying in Washington," Grassley insisted. "That's not a very good environment to carry on a conversation with the White House."

From NBC's Mark Murray
MoveOn says it will begin airing TV ads -- at a sizable buy -- targeting two Republican congressmen, Pat Tiberi of Ohio and Dave Reichert of Washington state.

Here's one of the ads:

[Youtube:mHuoSiIZLGA]

From NBC's Mark Murray
McLEAN, Va. -- In today's debate here, moderator David Gregory also asked Democrat Creigh Deeds about whether race was behind some of the protests and opposition aimed at President Obama.

Deeds answered in the affirmative, saying that there is a "hint of racism that is crystal clear."

In addition, Gregory asked Deeds where he disagreed with Obama. While he replied that he's "proud" to have the president's support and that Obama will be campaigning for him again in the future, Deeds said he differed with Obama on the cap-and-trade legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, and some of the excess spending in Washington.

Then Gregory asked, "Is he your kind of Democrat?"

Deeds responded, "I am a Creigh Deeds Democrat."

Meanwhile, Republican Bob McDonnell said this about Obama: "I disagree with him on some things." But he added that he agrees with the president -- who won the battleground state of Virginia by six percentage points last year -- on issues like merit pay and charter schools.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Another "birther" lawsuit, challenging President Obama's constitutional qualification to be president, has been rejected in federal court. And in tossing the case out, the judge said that Congress seems satisfied that Obama is qualified, based on the unanimous passage of a House resolution dealing with Hawaii.

On July 27th, the House approved, by a vote of 378-0, a resolution to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. In extolling the state's history, the resolution says, "the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." 

"Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve," says federal judge Clay Land, in dismissing the case. "Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office."

The lawsuit was filed by a U.S. Army doctor at Ft. Benning, Ga., who sought to prevent the Army from deploying her to Iraq. She claimed the deployment order was unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Obama is not eligible to act as commander in chief.

The judge rejected her claim as frivolous and said she "presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture."

The doctor was represented by Orly Taitz, who has filed several lawsuits around the country challenging Obama's qualifications. Judge Clay's order says if the lawyer files any more cases like this in his court, she'll be subject to sanctions.

From NBC's Luke Russert
The House, in a motion to recommit attached to the student loan bill, has voted overwhelmingly to de-fund ACORN.

It was a bipartisan vote, with more than 300 members voting for the measure. (We'll get the full numbers/vote breakdown shortly.)

This goes further than the Senate did; the Senate took money out of one bill. This is to de-fund the group completely -- for any money the House would appropriate.

*** UPDATE *** House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's office just sent around this statement:

"ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization. All federal ties should be severed with ACORN, and the FBI should investigate its activity. This united Republican effort to defund ACORN is a victory for the rule of law and taxpayers across the country."

*** UPDATE 2 *** The vote was 345-75.

*** UPDATE 3 *** In case anyone cares, student-loan reform (H.R. 3221 - Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009) also passed, 253-171.

From NBC's Mark Murray
McLEAN, Va. -- In their second debate, Virginia gubernatorial nominees Creigh Deeds (D) and Bob McDonnell (R) sparred here over transportation, taxes and energy policy, as well as the subject that has dominated the campaign in the last few weeks: the controversial 1989 graduate thesis McDonnell wrote at age 34.

In that thesis, which the Republican penned while a graduate student at what is now known as Regent University, McDonnell -- among other things -- called working women and feminists "detrimental" to the family. In the first question of the debate, NBC's David Gregory, who served as moderator, asked McDonnell about that comment, which he has since disavowed.

"Nobody in the world had read that thesis," McDonnell replied. "Now that's all my opponent wants to talk about." He went on to say that half of his campaign staffers are women and that his wife and daughters work, including his daughter who served in Iraq. "That is the ultimate working women," he emphasized.

When Gregory brought up McDonnell's 2001 vote against a resolution in the Virginia House of Delegates that supported ending wage discrimination between men and women, the Republican declared, "I support equal pay for women."

For his part, Deeds criticized the thesis, as well as what he says has been McDonnell's focus on social issues like abortion.

Near the end of the debate, which was sponsored by the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce, Deeds quipped that McDonnell doesn't support working women. In response, McDonnell shot back that he was "pretty insulted" that Deeds made that charge, citing his working wife and daughters.

Transportation, energy
McDonnell, Virginia's former attorney general, went on the offensive to criticize what he charged was Deeds' inability to lay out specifics in how he will pay for increased transportation spending. "My opponent has not one transportation plan," he said.

Deeds responded that he has "laid out" a transportation plan that would require Democrats and Republicans in Richmond to come together to find revenue to pay for spending. "Every funding mechanism is on the table for me, except one" -- taking money away from education spending.

Indeed, Deeds argued that McDonnell's transportation plan would use general state revenues to pay for transportation, which he said would come at the cost of education spending. "I will not rob Peter to pay Paul," Deeds said.

McDonnell also accused Deeds of supporting the cap-and-trade energy legislation that the U.S. House of Representatives passed earlier this year. "He supports it; I oppose it."

Deeds fired back, "I don't support the bill that came out of the House of Representatives."

Yet when McDonnell once again remarked that the Democrat supports the cap-and-trade legislation, Deeds glared at McDonnell and accused him of lying: "I don't support the bill."

On taxes
Deeds, who serves a Virginia state senator, blasted McDonnell for opposing the defining decision of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner's (D) tenure: a budget deal, which included a tax increase, to shore up Virginia's budget deficit.

"I stood with Mark Warner," he said. "Bob McDonnell stood against us every step of the way."

McDonnell replied that he voted against that 2004 budget deal because it was a large tax increase. "I don't believe you tax your way to prosperity."

When Gregory asked Deeds whether he was open to raising taxes, especially to pay for transportation, the Democrat responded, "I am not going to raise taxes." But right after that, Deeds appeared to leave open the possibility that he might raise taxes when he said he wanted to raise sources of funding.

Deeds and McDonnell also discussed the issue of guns, saying they were strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment. But Deeds said that after the tragic Virginia Tech shootings, he supports closing the gun-show loophole. That was one of the reasons why the National Rifle Association, which backed Deeds in his '05 attorney general race against McDonnell, recently endorsed McDonnell.

From NBC's Luke Russert
In his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill today, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) addressed the nation's hostile political climate. Boehner said, "I believe we are in the middle of a modern day political rebellion…The American people are saying enough is enough."

Boehner then recited the Obama administration's policy on the stimulus bill, deficits, the bailout of the auto industry, climate change and healthcare as reasons why Americans have become so impassioned.

Boehner cited a fear amongst many Americans at the quick changes happening in the country. "You begin to add all of this up and Americans are saying 'stop,'" he said. "They are scared to death that the country that they grew up in is not going to be the country that their kids and grandkids grew up in."

Boehner did call on Americans to be respectful. "I believe it ought to be civilized," he said. "Americans are speaking up, and I believe they should speak up."

When asked whether or not he feared the hostile climate could lead to violence as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said earlier today, Boehner responded, "No I do not." He then mentioned that on Labor Day weekend he had been to a Tea Party and "saw no signs or any indications of any kind of violence."

Recently, some have said attributed, in part, the nation's deteriorating civility to Obama being African-American. Boehner rejected this view. "This whole issue of race that people have tried to raise here in the last week or so and this insinuation that the people who are opposing the president's policies are motivated by race capped off by former President Carter's remarks in the last couple of days -- I reject this soundly," he said.

After recounting the pride he felt that America was able to elect an African-American president, Boehner continued, "The outrage we see in American has nothing to do with race it has everything to do with the policies he is promoting."

From NBC's Luke Russert
House Minority Leader John Boehner shifted attention to foreign policy by calling out White House for, he says, not letting Afghanistan Commander General Stanley McChrystal testify.

"Our commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal has submitted an assessment of the situation on the ground, but the Obama Administration has yet to allow him to testify here in Congress," Boehner asserted. "But I think it's imperative that the American people and members of Congress hear directly from Gen. McChrystal about the situation on the ground. We need to hear from him soon. Gen. Petraeus spoke before the Congress and he spoke plainly about his strategies  for stabilizing Iraq. I think that testimony was critical to Congress being able to make an informed decision regarding our success in that country. ...
This is not a partisan issue, the request to hear from General McChrystal is bi-partisan, and it is appropriate."

*** UPDATE *** Continuing on the Afghanistan issue, Boehner said, "I think when you look at the number of our soldiers who have been KIA, when you look at the number of Afghanis who have been maimed and killed and it gets on the front pages of our newspapers and TV stations, Americans have concerns. I have concerns, if our goal here is to deny safe haven to the Taliban and Al-Queda, we clearly do not have a sufficient number of troops there to get that job done. As a result we put our soldiers who are there in greater danger. It is time for General McChrystal to come to Congress and testify to help all Americans and Congress to understand the situation on the ground."
 
He also said the Congress needs to know "what the strategy for success in Afghanistan is."

*** UPDATE 2 *** Boehner also pressed the subject of ACORN, calling the group a "corrupt gang."

"I think it's outrageous that House Democrats have voted time and again to protect taxpayer funding for ACORN, a troubled organization rife with corruption and criminal conduct," he said. "House Republicans have requested that the President end all Federal funding of ACORN and if he declines to act we have legislation that is already introduced to get this job done. ... If the Speaker refuses to allow a vote on this bill, I'll file a discharge petition to try and force one. ... 

"We need to stop giving money to this corrupt gang immediately."

From NBC's Carl Sears and Luke Russert
The reaction is pouring in on the White House's break with Bush on European missile defense. Here's the latest roundup:

At the weekly House Republican briefing, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) criticized Obama's decision:

"This ill-advised decision does little more than to empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our european [allies]," he said. He added later that the president should reconsider the decision and stand with our allies and do what is right and stand for the safety of the American people."

Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) compared Obama to Jimmy Carter in a written statement:

"The first nine months of the Obama administration have emboldened rogue dictators across the globe, and now an increasingly antagonistic Russia has been rewarded for bullying and threatening its neighbors. Not since the Carter administration has America looked so weak on the international stage."

Predictably, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry had a different view. He said in a statement:

"President Obama's decision to restructure missile defense in Europe is correct and timely. Proven technologies and responsible diplomacy must be at the core of missile defense in Europe, and now is the time to press forward with the more flexible missile defense architecture that the president and Secretary Gates have chosen. NATO is the bedrock of our security, whether a country is at the geographic heart of the alliance or on its frontiers. The president's new proposal will provide a stronger and more effective defense for American forces and our NATO allies."

*** UPDATE *** Equally predictably, 2012 likely Mitt Romney, who has called Obama and apologist, takes issue, per National Review Online:

"It is with good reason that the American people are focused on the economy and domestic issues-we continue to lose jobs, amass record-breaking deficits, and the President is promoting a plan to add a trillion dollar health burden. But foreign policy actions by the Obama administration deserve immediate attention. President Obama has made a dangerous and alarming decision to shelve our missile-defense system in Europe. Facing the growing threat from Iran's nuclear ambition, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has worked long and hard to secure a site for the system to thwart a potential strike against our European allies. Developing the missile shield could also have important implications for US security. His decision is wrong in every way, despite his rationale:

- The Administration says that our intelligence believes the threat from Iran is not as far advanced as it had originally estimated. First, our intelligence regarding Iran is far from reliable and certain. Our window into the country is cloudy, at best. Other foreign intelligence agencies have reached very different conclusions. And second, it makes no sense to try to time the construction, testing and deployment of a defense system to the very hour when one might guess the nuclear threat will arrive. No one is that prescient. Using the most rosy scenario of Iran's nuclear capabilities to schedule the establishment of our defense is dangerous in the extreme.

- The Administration believes that by giving such a gesture of goodwill to the Russians, they will be more willing to give in to our request that they join in sanctions against Iran. Here, the President's lack of negotiation experience may have come in to play. Yes, sometimes in a negotiation you give up something that is important to you, but you do that only when the other party has agreed to give you something you want even more. You don't give before you get. But here it's even worse than that: the President has taught Putin that when he blusters and threatens, America caves.

- The Administration is also teaching our friends some very unfortunate lessons; the Eastern Europeans who have stood so valiantly with America and who took political heat for backing the missile-defense system have simply been brushed aside. They have to wonder why America is treating its foes better than it is treating its friends. It's a question that also is surely being asked in Israel and Honduras.

- The Administration's discounting of Iran's nuclear progress tells Israel that if it is to stop what its own intelligence may believe is an imminent threat, it may have to act alone-and precipitously.

Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA. It is rushing headlong towards nuclear capability-it may already have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb. And it may well have secured access to missile technology from other nations. North Korea is, of course, much further along. And Pakistan, a state threatened from within by Jihadists, has extensive nuclear capabilities. In such an environment, it is alarming and dangerous for the President to walk away from our missile-defense commitments."

From NBC's Luke Russert
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a lightning rod for conservatives herself, grew emotional today at her weekly press conference when fielding a question regarding the increasingly hostile political climate that seems to be engulfing the country these days.

Pelosi, visibly choked-up and teary-eyed, softly said, "The balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance. … I have some concerns about some of the language being used, because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco; this kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate where violence took place. I wish that we could all curb our enthusiasm in the statements that we make and understand that some of the ears that it's falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."

She continued, "Again our country is based on people being able to say what they believe, but I also believe they must take responsibility for any incitement they may cause."

On the Baucus bill, when asked by NBC News whether the bill was futile, because, as Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY) said yesterday, Democrats had "negotiated with ourselves," the speaker said, "We all hoped they would come up with something with Republican support."

Pelosi was emphatic that a health-reform bill that would pass the House would contain a public option.

"A public option will be in the bill that passes the House," Pelosi said.

On ACORN, Pelosi also said it is up to the Appropriations Committee to look into the activities of the controversial community activist group ACORN, and that the House, "has to have our own scrutiny" on the matter.

Got a politics question? Ask Chuck Todd, who will be chatting with viewers today at 12:15 p.m.

Click here for the chat.

****UPDATE: The chat will now start at 12:30 p.m.****

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
In anticipation of President Obama's health-care rally at the University of Maryland today, former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) said American voters found Democrats' plans for health care unpalatable.
 
Referring to candidate Obama's statements on health care while campaigning, Ehrlich said, "During the campaign people do not respond to specifics. We heard a lot of platitudes during the course of the campaign."
 
He added, "Now the time for platitudes is over, and what the American people have seen over the past couple months are the specifics concerning the president's views on health care."
 
Speaking to reporters on a conference call sponsored by the Republican National Committee, Ehrlich said that Republican resistance to current health-care reform bills, including the one released yesterday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, is driven by ideological differences, rather than deep-seated partisanship. 
 
"There is a mixing up of the terms 'partisan' and 'philosophical debate,'" Ehrlich said. "Ideological and philosophical differences about 16 percent of the American economy are very legitimate."
 
Ehrlich was governor from 2003 to 2007, before being defeated by Democrat Martin O'Malley. Responding to speculation that he may seek the office again in 2010, Ehrlich said, "There are no artificial deadlines attached to the decision-making process. … It's something we're looking at. As I've said, all options are open."
 
The Maryland Republican Party recently had some setbacks: On Tuesday, James Pelura, chairman of the state party, announced he would resign in mid-November. According to the Washington Post, "The share of registered Republicans in Maryland has slipped from almost 29 to 26.6 percent, and the portion of Democrats has grown from 55 to almost 57 percent."
 
Ehrlich's hesitance in jumping into the race is preventing other potential candidates from formally announcing their bids. Former Ehrlich cabinet member Larry Hogan has announced his intentions to launch an exploratory committee, but said he will not move forward with his campaign if his former boss decides to run.

Still, this is not expected to be a competitive race. The Cook Political Report grades it "Solid D."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Ken Strickland
President Obama announced a break from President Bush's policy on missile defense in Europe. It has been a major point of contention with Russia.

But the President contended the new policy doesn't make the country weaker. In fact, "To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said. "It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies."

Before Obama spoke, his 2008 Republican rival, John McCain said he is "disappointed" in the president's decision and that hte U.S. should "strengthen our defenses."

Below is McCain's full statement, followed by Obama's remarks today, as well as the White House's release on its missile defense policy.

McCain:

"I am disappointed with the Administration's decision to cancel plans to develop missile defenses in Eastern Europe. This decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic, and has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe. Given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region's nations since the end of the Cold War, we should not, I believe, take steps backward in strengthening these ties. Yet I fear the Administration's decision will do just that, and at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian adventurism.

"Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran's missile and nuclear programs, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defenses, and those of our allies. Missile defense in Europe has been a key component of this approach. I believe the decision to abandon it unilaterally is seriously misguided."

Transcript of what Obama said this morning, per the White House:

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  As Commander-in-Chief, I'm committed to doing everything in my power to advance our national security.  And that includes strengthening our defenses against any and all threats to our people, our troops, and our friends and allies around the world.

     One of those threats is the danger posed by ballistic missiles.  As I said during the campaign, President Bush was right that Iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat.  And that's why I'm committed to deploying strong missile defense systems which are adaptable to the threats of the 21st century.

     The best way to responsibly advance our security and the security of our allies is to deploy a missile defense system that best responds to the threats that we face and that utilizes technology that is both proven and cost-effective.

     In keeping with that commitment, and a congressionally mandated review, I ordered a comprehensive assessment of our missile defense program in Europe.  And after an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my Secretary of Defense and my Joint Chiefs of Staff to strengthen America's defenses against ballistic missile attack.

     This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems, and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.

     This decision was guided by two principal factors.  First, we have updated our intelligence assessment of Iran's missile programs, which emphasizes the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, which are capable of reaching Europe.  There's no substitute for Iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program, and we, along with our allies and partners, will continue to pursue strong diplomacy to ensure that Iran lives up to these international obligations.  But this new ballistic missile defense program will best address the threat posed by Iran's ongoing ballistic missile defense program.

     Second, we have made specific and proven advances in our missile defense technology, particularly with regard to land- and sea-based interceptors and the sensors that support them.  Our new approach will, therefore, deploy technologies that are proven and cost-effective and that counter the current threat, and do so sooner than the previous program.  Because our approach will be phased and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve. 

     To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies.  It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.

     This approach is also consistent with NATO missile -- NATO's missile defense efforts and provides opportunities for enhanced international collaboration going forward.  We will continue to work cooperatively with our close friends and allies, the Czech Republic and Poland, who had agreed to host elements of the previous program.  I've spoken to the Prime Ministers of both the Czech Republic and Poland about this decision and reaffirmed our deep and close ties.  Together we are committed to a broad range of cooperative efforts to strengthen our collective defense, and we are bound by the solemn commitment of NATO's Article V that an attack on one is an attack on all.

     We've also repeatedly made clear to Russia that its concerns about our previous missile defense programs were entirely unfounded.  Our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missile program, and that continues to be our focus and the basis of the program that we're announcing today.

     In confronting that threat, we welcome Russians' cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests, even as we continue to -- we continue our shared efforts to end Iran's illicit nuclear program.

     Going forward, my administration will continue to consult closely with Congress and with our allies as we deploy this system, and we will rigorously evaluate both the threat posed by ballistic missiles and the technology that we are developing to counter it.

     I'm confident that with the steps we've taken today, we have strengthened America's national security and enhanced our capacity to confront 21st century threats.

     Thank you very much, everybody.

White House Fact Sheet for what the administration plans to do on missile defense in Europe:

Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy
 A "Phased, Adaptive Approach" for Missile Defense in Europe

President Obama has approved the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe.  This approach is based on an assessment of the Iranian missile threat, and a commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and adaptable to an evolving security environment. 

Starting around 2011, this missile defense architecture will feature deployments of increasingly-capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors, primarily upgraded versions of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), and a range of sensors in Europe to defend against the growing ballistic missile threat from Iran.  This phased approach develops the capability to augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats, and to offer more effective defenses against more near-term ballistic missile threats.  The plan provides for the defense of U.S. deployed forces, their families, and our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.

The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President that he revise the previous Administration's 2007 plan for missile defense in Europe as part of an ongoing comprehensive review of our missile defenses mandated by Congress.  Two major developments led to this unanimous recommended change:

·         New Threat Assessment:  The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated.  In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.

·         Advances in Capabilities and Technologies:  Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly.  We expect this trend to continue.  Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture. This architecture is responsive to the current threat, but could also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively to respond to evolving threats.  Accordingly, the Department of Defense has developed a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe.  While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:

·         Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families; 

·         Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats; 

·         Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) –  After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and 

·         Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States. 

Throughout all four phases, the United States also will be testing and updating a range of approaches for improving our sensors for missile defense.  The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland.  Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture. 

The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.

The phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe:

·         Sustains U.S. homeland defense against long-range ballistic missile threats.  The deployment of an advanced version of the SM-3 interceptor in Phase Four of the approach would augment existing ground-based interceptors located in Alaska and California, which provide for the defense of the homeland against a potential ICBM threat. 

·         Speeds protection of U.S. deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying families against the near-term missile threat from Iran.  We would deploy current and proven technology by roughly 2011 – about six or seven years earlier than the previous plan – to help defend the regions in Europe most vulnerable to the Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile threat.

·         Ensures and enhances the protection of the territory and populations of all NATO Allies, in concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the current and growing ballistic missile threat.  Starting in 2011, the phased, adaptive approach would systematically increase the defended area as the threat is expected to grow.  In the 2018 timeframe, all of Europe could be protected by our collective missile defense architecture.

·         Deploys proven capabilities and technologies to meet current threats.  SM-3 (Block 1A) interceptors are deployed on Aegis ships today, and more advanced versions are in various stages of development.  Over the past four years, we have conducted a number of tests of the SM-3 IA, and it was the interceptor used in the successful engagement of a decaying satellite in February 2008.  Testing in 2008 showed that sensors we plan to field bring significant capabilities to the architecture, and additional, planned research and development over the next few years offers the potential for more diverse and more capable sensors.

·         Provides flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves.  Because of the lower per-interceptor costs and mobility of key elements of the architecture, we will be better postured to adapt this set of defenses to any changes in threat.

We will work with our Allies to integrate this architecture with NATO members' missile defense capabilities, as well as with the emerging NATO command and control network that is under development.  One benefit of the phased, adaptive approach is that there is a high degree of flexibility – in addition to sea-based assets, there are many potential locations for the architecture's land-based elements, some of which will be re-locatable.  We plan to deploy elements in northern and southern Europe and will be consulting closely at NATO with Allies on the specific deployment options. 

We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.  We have repeatedly made clear to Russia that missile defense in Europe poses no threat to its strategic deterrent.  Rather, the purpose is to strengthen defenses against the growing Iranian missile threat.  There is no substitute for Iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  But ballistic missile defenses will address the threat from Iran's ballistic missile programs, and diminish the coercive influence that Iran hopes to gain by continuing to develop these destabilizing capabilities.

Through the ongoing Department of Defense ballistic missile defense review, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will continue to provide recommendations to the President that address other aspects of our ballistic missile defense capabilities and posture around the world.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Most of us, who have been watching the Senate field take shape in Massachusetts, have thought state Attorney General Martha Coakley was a pretty good candidate and would probably be the front runner.

She had a strong announcement speech, and a tough, crime-fighting woman in a field of men would have inherent political advantages.

Well, here are the numbers to back it up. According to a new Suffolk poll, Coakley blows away the both the Democratic primary field and a leading Republican, who are all vying to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Coakley gets 47%, and the next closest competitor, Rep. Mike Capuano gets just 9%. Following Capuano is Rep. Stephen Lynch (who said he won't run) at 6% and City Year founder Alan Khazei at 3%.

Bay Staters also say they prefer Coakley to a leading Republican contender, state Sen. Scott Brown, by a wide margin -- 54%-20%.

The poll shows that Bay Staters aren't quite over their Kennedy fascination -- 59% said they would have voted for Joe Kennedy, Ted Kennedy's nephew, had he run.

Also of note, former Red Sox ace and World Series hero Curt Schilling, who has flirted with a run for the Senate, is a net-negative (!). Only 29% view him favorably versus 39% who view him negatively. And he, of course, is known by nearly everyone in the state -- just 12% in the poll say they don't know him. Baseball's goodwill clearly isn't translating to political support for Schilling, who has been an outspoken conservative. Many will remember that he was an ardent supporter of John McCain, and stumped for the Republican during his run for president in 2008.

(Hat tip: Political Wire)

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Baucus' bust? After months of negotiations, after trying desperately to find middle ground, and after everyone waiting to see what he would produce, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus yesterday unveiled a bill that … pleased almost no one on Capitol Hill. It disappointed liberals and progressives. More importantly, not a single Senate Republican so far, not even Olympia Snowe, has signed on. Of course, that can all change once the bill gets marked up and amended next week. And as the Washington Post points out, the health industry, which sank health-care reform in 1993-4, is still on board. But it's clear that while Baucus was busy working on the policy, he didn't get the politics right, at least not yet. As Mitch McConnell's communications office emailed us this morning, "The only thing bipartisan" about Baucus' bill "is the opposition."

*** Obama's one-on-one work: So who's working on getting the politics right? None other than President Obama. Yesterday, he met with two Democratic Senate Finance members who have voiced criticisms about the Baucus legislation (and who also were left out of the bipartisan "Gang of Six" talks). And today, Obama works on the politics again when he hits a rally in College Park, MD for health-care reform at 11:40 am ET. Indeed, at least on this issue, the president has become the Senate majority leader. And who's his whip? David Axelrod, who we learned yesterday was making calls to the Massachusetts Legislature to change the state's succession law to give Democrats their 60th Senate vote ASAP. 

*** Is the middle the loneliest place to be? But what does it say about today's Republican Party when Baucus' bill seeks the middle ground, lowers the price tag, doesn't contain the so-called public option, and actually lowers health costs -- and yet not a single Republican, even Snowe, will embrace it? Indeed, the middle may very well be the loneliest place to be in America these days. In our politics, almost everyone seems to be on one side or another, with very few (Snowe, Collins, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, etc.) in between. The same seems true of our society, where everyone is looking out for his or her own self-interest, rather than the greater good. Baucus' biggest problem may have been seeking the middle ground in a country where the middle is seemingly lost.

*** Missile defense: Today's biggest non-health care news: "The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe," the Wall Street Journal reports. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski adds that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will hold a press conference on this move at 10:30 am ET. More from Mik: "After a reported decision by the Obama administration to abandon plans to install a permanent missile defense system in both the Czech Republic and Poland, a senior official says the White House will announce plans to field a more 'portable and flexible' -- yet capable -- system to defend against short and medium-range missile attacks on our European allies and the American forces stationed there." What will be fascinating at Gates' presser is seeing him explain how he changed his mind here -- the Bush administration Gates vs. the Obama administration Gates. 

*** The 9/15 Commission gets to work: Here's another piece of interesting news: "Four months after its creation, a congressionally appointed panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group is opening a 15-month investigation into the causes of last year's economy-crippling financial collapse. The 10-member, bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission holds its first meeting Thursday. With a budget of $5 million, its instructions are to submit findings to lawmakers by December 2010, long after Congress hopes to have a new regulations in place for preventing another Wall Street meltdown. That deadline also assures that the findings won't have any impact on the 2010 congressional races."

*** Czar Wars: As we've mentioned, conservatives and the conservative media have pushed stories -- Van Jones, ACORN -- and scored political points in the process. But on another story -- the czars in the Obama administration -- the White House is now pushing back, pointing out that the previous administration had plenty of czars, too. A new DNC video makes that point, as did White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs from the podium yesterday. The White House and Democrats probably didn't have the high ground on the Jones and ACORN stories, but it probably does on this czars one. This is a fight the White House wants to have…

*** Debate in VA: Turning to Virginia's gubernatorial contest, which takes place in 47 days, NBC's David Gregory today moderates the first debate between Creigh Deeds (D) and Bob McDonnell (R) since McDonnell's 1989 master's thesis came to light. Polls show that McDonnell is ahead in the race, with him overperforming among independents and in Northern Virginia. Can Deeds use this debate -- which takes place in NoVA in McLean, VA at 11:00 am ET -- to even the contest in a state Obama won by six percentage points last year?

*** Cheney in the hospital: Finally, former Vice President Cheney went to The George Washington University Hospital this morning for elective surgery to deal with lumbar spinal stenosis. Dr. Anthony Caputy, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery, will perform the operation. According to the North American Spine Society, lumbar spinal stenosis is associated with old age and degenerative arthritis. It's usually treated non-surgically, but if it becomes painful, a small percentage might require surgery.

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 47 days
Countdown to Primary to Replace Ted Kennedy: 82 days
Countdown to Special Election to Replace Kennedy: 124 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 411 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.

The Boston Globe's lead on the Baucus bill announcement: "Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released his long-awaited health care proposal yesterday without the bipartisan support he had sought over months of painstaking negotiations, only to see it attacked from every corner of the political spectrum." More: "Republicans said his plan spent too much on insurance subsidies for low-income people, Democrats said it did not spend enough. Lawmakers in both parties said it was unaffordable, particularly for low- and middle-income people. Republican leaders, who have panned the Democrats' plans from the start, pronounced it 'dead on arrival.'" And on and on…

The Hill: "The Finance Committee chairman has huddled for months with a bipartisan Gang of Six senators in hope of devising a compromise. But it hasn't worked, at least not yet. The right hates it, the left thinks it's weak and the center may not be as broad as Baucus hoped."

Liberals on the Finance Committee (see: Rockefeller, Jay) are irritated with Baucus for having been shut out of the negotiations. Another Hill story points out: "Baucus handpicked the Gang of Six, a group of lawmakers who represent states with a combined population of 8.4 million people, about the same as New York City." 

Even the White House wasn't overly enthusiastic… White House Press Secretary Robert "Gibbs said that while much of Baucus's bill, which has been assailed by Democrats and Republicans, does track with Obama's overall goals for reform, he doesn't 'think this is a mirror of what the president has talked about.' The White House expects that 'there will be a continued legislative process that will tweak and change legislation, as there always is.'"

A Washington Post analysis, however, has a different take. "On the surface, it appears that no one is happy with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) -- and that may be the best news President Obama has had in months… [B]ehind the rhetorical fireworks was a sense that the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation's $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact. As they scoured the 223-page document, many of the most influential players found elements to dislike, but not necessarily reasons to kill the effort. Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers."

Roll Call: "Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) appeared unflappable Wednesday as he absorbed unrelenting criticism of his health care reform bill from the left and right, and the debate in the Senate took on a new, more urgent tone. The reaction from Senators and interest groups was almost instantaneous -- and overwhelmingly negative or noncommittal."
 
More: "Baucus struck an optimistic tone when asked why so many were distancing themselves from a product that he has worked on for months within the bipartisan gang of six. 'Part of it could be they want to see what it is, really, because it was just introduced,' Baucus said. 'It's going to take getting a sense, you know, of where things are. But I think that we're going to get very significant support for this by the time we get to the end of this process, and each step along the way, support for the bill's not going to deteriorate, it's going to build.'"

The AP with the Kaiser Family Foundation does a comparison of the bills moving through Congress. And here's a breakdown of the details of the Baucus bill, per the AP. 

Roll Call profiles Jim Clyburn and his history with Joe Wilson: "For Clyburn, it was the culmination of years of perceived slights and insensitivities on Wilson's part — from his backing of flying the Confederate flag atop the South Carolina Capitol to holding a raucous town hall meeting during the August break in Clyburn's district at his children's high school. This time Wilson had gone too far."

And: "A government-watchdog group filed a formal complaint yesterday with the House Ethics Committee to investigate the puzzling array of questions surrounding Rep. Charlie Rangel's ownership of a Harlem brownstone," the New York Post writes. "To the degree Rep. Rangel underreported rental income year after year on his financial-disclosure statements from his investment property, serious questions arise as to whether he also failed to report such income on his city, state and federal income-tax returns," Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, wrote to the Ethics Committee.