A source close to the campaign tells First Read that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) will formally announce his presidential bid on June 6 from southwestern Pennsylvania.

Santorum has already formed his presidential exploratory committee.

Why southwestern Pennsylvania? It's where his grandfather worked in the coal mines after leaving Italy.

"This location is significant because when Se.n Santorum's grandfather left fascist Italy, he came to this country for America's freedom and the opportunity our nation afforded him," the source says.

First came the news that Sarah Palin purchased a home in Arizona. Then came word of the glowing two-hour documentary about her record as Alaska governor. And then it was reported that she re-hired two key aides.

Now here's another sign Palin might be eyeing a White House bid: She's embarking on a bus tour this weekend.

A Palin spokesperson tells NBC News:

“Starting this weekend Sarah Palin will embark on a one nation tour of historical sites that were key to the formation survival and growth of the United States of America. The tour will originate in Washington DC. and will proceed north up the East Coast."

Of course, this doesn't mean she eventually will run. But it certainly stokes speculation about her intentions. 

Headline punsters, start your engines. There may be a lot more stories about Herman Cain coming.

The only GOP presidential hopeful who can be described with the title “pizza magnate” received only an asterisk of media attention when he became the first contender to launch a presidential exploratory committee earlier this year.

But a new poll from Gallup shows that the radio host and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO – who has never held elected office -- is now registering support comparable to that of a former House Speaker, a two-time presidential candidate, and a two-term governor.

In the new poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, Cain debuted at eight percent, barely trailing former Speaker Newt Gingrich (nine percent) and Rep. Ron Paul (10 percent) -- and beating serious contenders former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (six percent) and former Gov. Jon Huntsman (two percent.)

Cain has benefited from a rigorous campaign schedule and solid performances at multi-candidate forums, most notably the FOX News debate earlier this month. Cain, who shared the stage with Pawlenty and Paul, won wildly enthusiastic reviews from a FOX-organized post-debate focus group led by pollster Frank Luntz.

Leading the Gallup survey were former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 17 percent and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 15 percent. 

Democrats thumped their collective chest one more time following the special election in NY-26.

"The House is in play," boasted Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, at a briefing with his counterpart at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Israel said it's "far earlier" than he thought he would have been able to say that.

Democrats need 25 seats to take back the House. Israel has talked before about a "Drive for 25," but hadn't explicitly declared previously that it was "in play." He joked that the "Drive for 25" is now known as "Only 24 More."

Israel stressed, however, that while NY-26 "informed our strategy," it "won't BE our strategy." He said the messaging on Medicare and ending oil subsidies worked and will work in many races across the country, but he said he is "not going to get cocky." He called the race a "shot in the arm," and makes him "confident," but he is still going to be "strategic" and "calculating."

"We'll take the Medicare fight anywhere in the country," he said. He contended that the presence of a third-party, Tea Party candidate had no effect on the race. "The fact is Jack Davis wasn't a factor," he said, adding that as Election Day got closer that Davis voters broke toward Democrat Kathy Hochul. "Even in a two-way," he said, "she would've won."

While he wouldn't put a number on how wide he believes the playing field is now, he maintained that there are 97 Republican-held districts that are more conservative than NY-26.

Those members are "losing sleep" after NY-26, Israel said.

"This is a lot more than just about politics," Murray said. "It's about policy."

She contended that's why people are "rejecting" Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) controversial budget proposal, which would partially privatize Medicare. She said voters will reject Republicans' agenda, which is not about jobs, she said, but about "ending Medicare as we know it," continuing oil subsidies, and tax cuts for the rich.

Democrats are largely playing defense in the Senate this cycle. Republicans need to pick up four seats if President Obama is reelected to take back control -- and three if he is not. Of First Read's Top 10 Takeovers released in March, before Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl's retirement in Wisconsin, eight were GOP targets.

But Democrats feel they have an opening, particularly on the issue of Medicare. Murray said Republican Senate candidates are tying themselves "in knots" over Ryan's plan -- and that, in part, gives her confidence her party will retain control of the Senate.

"We're not going to let up," Murray said. "We're going to hold Republicans accountable."

In a blow to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and state Republicans, a state judge today struck down Wisconsin’s controversial law stripping public employees of most collective-bargaining rights.

The 33-page decision by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi -- appointed by former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson -- ruled that passage of the measure broke the state's open meetings law when the GOP-controlled legislature quickly passed the provisions on March 9.

In her written opinion, the judge said Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne showed "clear and convincing evidence" that Republicans violated the open meeting law and left her no choice but to "void the legislative actions flowing from those violations."

The Wisconsin Democratic Party celebrated the ruling. "Today, Wisconsin was given further proof, from a judge appointed by Tommy Thompson, that Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers treated the rule of law with contempt in their illegal and divisive overreach. The decision should be looked at as an opportunity to work together to find commonsense solutions to grow our economy and get our fiscal house in order - not to tear our state apart, as Walker and his lockstep Legislature have chosen to do."

But this isn’t the final decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already scheduled arguments on the case for June 6.

What’s more, there is no immediate effect of today’s ruling. The same judge has previously blocked the implementation of the law, so it has never taken effect.

In addition, the trial judge said that the legislature could fix it all by giving new, adequate notice of a meeting -- and then pass the law again.

While Gov. Walker's office and the Republican Party of Wisconsin had no comment in the immediate aftermath of the ruling, state republican lawmakers have said previously they would attempt to pass the collective bargaining measures with the 2011-13 budget if the current legislation were voided.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Handing a legal victory to groups pushing back against illegal immigration, the Supreme Court today upheld an Arizona law that punishes businesses in the state for hiring workers who are in the country illegally.

Federal law against illegal immigration says the states cannot penalize businesses that hire illegal workers "except through licensing."

So in 2007, Arizona passed a controversial law -- signed by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano  -- that allows the state to take away the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal workers. Led by the US Chamber of Commerce, several business and civil rights groups challenged the law, saying enforcement of the immigation laws is for the federal government.

The Obama administration also sued Arizona over the law. Congress, the groups said, never meant to give the states such latitude over virtually any license to do business.

But today by a 5-3 vote (with Justice Elena Kagan siting this one out), the Supreme Court upheld the Arizona law.

The state is simply imposing the punishments the federal law allows, the court said. In addition, the court pointed out, before a business can lose its license, it must intentionally and repeatedly hire illegal workers.

"Congress did not intend to preserve only state state laws that have no effect" on illegal immigration, said Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote today's opinion.

Today's ruling is a green light for other states considering laws that punish employers for hiring illegal workers. Nine states have already done so.

The court has yet to take up the far more controversial Arizona law that requires police to round up anyone they think is in the state illegally. And this ruling does not foreshadow how the Supreme Court will rule on that one, because Congress specifically opened the door to the kind of state regulation upheld today.

While Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have said nice things about the House GOP budget plan -- but still slightly distance themselves from it -- Rick Santorum is embracing it fully. His statement today:

"At a time when our country faces debilitating debt and spiraling deficits, the U.S. Senate chose political maneuvering over voting for real progress in supporting the FY 2012 budget. Chairman Ryan's budget presented some of the most thoughtful and realistic solutions for getting our country's fiscal house back in order, and yet Democrats and even some in my Party chose to close the door on fiscal sanity. I hope conservatives will not be discouraged by last night's vote and continue to propose solutions that will reform our entitlement programs so that we can really achieve a fiscally responsible federal government."

Last week, Jon Huntsman said he backed the House budget plan, without any qualifications.

Who wins if Palin runs: Romney and Obama… Who loses: Pawlenty and Huntsman… Does Palin moving to AZ raise Team Obama’s chances of being able to play in the state in 2012?... A reality check: Palin’s polarizing poll numbers… Libya and the G8… Wrapping up yesterday’s Senate budget votes… Dems continue to talk up NY-26… Biden brings up bin Laden in NH… Obama’s turnaround in FL?... And Newt and T-Paw are in NH, while Romney’s in IL and Bachmann is scheduled to be in IA.

*** Who wins (and who loses) if Palin runs: By now, you’ve probably heard about the increasing signs that Sarah Palin might run for president after all. A new two-hour movie about her record as Alaska governor will premiere in Iowa next month; she’s bought a home in Scottsdale, AZ; and she’s hired back two top aides. What’s more, the New York Times says, Palin “is expected to resume a schedule of public appearances soon — perhaps as early as this weekend — to raise her profile at a moment when the Republican presidential field appears to be taking final form.” While we’re still unsure she actually runs (it could simply be a gambit to get into the political spotlight), a Palin bid would have a profound effect on the rest of the field. For starters, it would benefit the slight front-runner Mitt Romney, because Palin would take attention away from other challengers (like Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman). It also would probably unite the GOP establishment around Romney.

*** Raising Arizona? So the happiest person about this Palin news is Romney. The second happiest? Well, that would be Team Obama. In fact, if there is one state Plouffe/Messina/Axelrod would like her to move to, it’s Arizona -- which would remind voters there about Palin’s controversial “blood libel” remarks after the Giffords shooting, versus the president’s own Tucson speech. Make no mistake: Arizona would be a tough state for Obama in 2012 (example: the Justice Department’s suit against the state’s immigration law). But if Palin becomes the face of the Republican Party in the state, it won’t hurt Team Obama to play there. They've been looking for a way to rally their base in Arizona to begin organizing the state, and Palin hands them an easy opportunity.  

*** Palin’s polarizing numbers: A final point about a Palin bid: She has an awful lot of hurdles to overcome to reach the White House. Our April NBC/WSJ poll found her with a 25%-53% fav/unfav score, with just 9% viewing her VERY POSITIVELY (her lowest number here ever in the poll) and with 41% viewing her VERY NEGATIVELY (her highest number here). In addition, her fav/unfav among independents is 19%-54%, while it’s 48%-25% among Republicans, 63%-7% among Tea Party supporters, and 6%-83% among Democrats. In other words, she’s adored by conservatives, but not by anyone else. But check that last number on Republicans on more time: One in four REPUBLICANS have an unfavorable view of her. That's not just a hurdle; it's a potential roadblock.

*** Libya and the G8: Overseas at the G8, which begins today in France, perhaps the biggest news behind the scenes is the (slight) push by Sarkozy and Cameron to have the U.S. play a larger military role in Libya. But here’s the White House’s position: They are doing everything they said they WOULD do from the get-go. To go any further and to ramp up the U.S. role in the military effort would then mean the White House would need authorization from Congress. To be clear, for the role the U.S. is playing NOW in Libya, the White House believes they do NOT need a legal authorization from Congress. But if the military piece got bigger, then it's unclear. And consider this: Do congressional leaders want to have this vote? While Obama, Boehner, Reid, and McConnell could probably get an authorization passed through Congress, none of them wants to deal with that right now. And it comes as a growing number in Congress -- think Sen. Jim Webb -- believe the legislative branch is ceding its role on military matters to the executive branch. As the Times writes, “Several lawmakers from both parties on Wednesday accused President Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution by continuing American participation in NATO’s air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, but they struggled with the question of what Congress can or should do about it.”

*** Budget battles: One day after the NY-26 special election, where the Ryan budget plan was an issue, the Senate yesterday rejected that very plan by a 40-57 vote, NBC’s Libby Leist notes. Five Senate Republicans voted against the measure: Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Olympia Snowe. In a separate vote, the Senate rejected President Obama's budget, 0-97. (Democrats say they voted against it, because Obama himself has moved past the budget and called for more cuts.) Leist adds that the chamber also voted down GOP Sen. Pat Toomey’s budget (by 42-55), as well as GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s budget (7-90). Regarding the Ryan vote, there weren’t any big surprises: Dick Lugar voted for it (given his GOP primary), while Brown (who potentially faces a competitive re-election fight) voted against it.

*** Dems continue to talk up NY-26: Speaking of the NY-26 race, DCCC Chairman Steve Israel appeared on Meet the Press’ weekly “Press Pass,” and he said the result made 97 GOP members lose some sleep that night. Israel and DSCC Chair Patty Murray hold a pen-and-pad session at 10:15 am ET to spin that special-election victory. 

*** Biden brings up OBL in NH: Don’t miss what Vice President Biden said about Obama and 2012 at a New Hampshire Democratic dinner last night. The New Hampshire Union Leader: “The 2012 election is about the future and about restoring the American dream, which is why Biden said he partnered with Obama in 2008. It is about strength in leadership, according to Biden, describing Obama as a leader with a backbone.  Americans watched as Obama executed what he called the ‘boldest undertaking of a single event in modern history,’ referring to Osama bin Laden's death.  With his future on the line, Obama didn't hesitate, said Biden. ‘And, that was the last piece of the puzzle that had to be put in place,’ added the vice president.”

*** Obama’s turnaround in FL? Perhaps it’s a sign of Obama’s bin Laden bounce -- or the fact how fickle polls in the Sunshine State can be -- but a new Quinnipiac Florida poll has the president with a 51% approval rating in the state (up from 44% in April), and it has 50% saying he deserves re-election (vs. 42% a month ago).

*** On the 2012 trail: Gingrich and Pawlenty are in New Hampshire… Romney discusses jobs and the economy in Chicago, IL… And Bachmann is scheduled to address the Polk County (IA) GOP (but the Patriot Act votes might complicate her schedule).

Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 79 days
Countdown to NV-2 special election: 110 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 166 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 256 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up

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.

Stu Rothenberg: Paul Ryan’s “new status as unassailable GOP economic guru elevates the seven-term Congressman to a level that may be dangerous both for him and his party… [E]levating Ryan to a point where it’s somehow sacrilegious to criticize him or question some of his arguments — or even to suggest that he must save his party by jumping into the presidential contest — isn’t healthy for Ryan or his party. Parts of his record, after all, would make some of the people calling for his entry into the race blush.” Rothenberg notes that he voted for TARP, the auto bailout, No Child Left Behind, the 2006 highway bill with its Bridge to Nowhere, and the prescription drug benefit.

More: “[A]t some point, conservatives will realize that Ryan’s proposal is a considerable problem for the party and that a Ryan presidential bid would be an even bigger problem. When they do, those Republicans and conservatives will be relieved that Paul Ryan, no matter how courageous, articulate, thoughtful and intelligent they think he is, isn’t the GOP nominee for president.”

Romney leads in a new Gallup poll with 17%, followed by Palin with 15%, Paul 10%, Gingrich 9%, Cain 8%, Pawlenty 6%, Bachmann 5%, Huntsman, Johnson, and Santorum all get 2%.

The Hill notes, “The poll is the first major, national poll since several would-be candidates — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and real estate mogul Donald Trump — announced that they wouldn't seek the nomination.”

BACHMANN: “After hearing reports of behavior at candidate events that was either a security risk or an embarrassment, Polk County GOP officials have asked a private security firm to provide protection during a Michele Bachmann speech tonight,” the Des Moines Register reports. “Two recent incidents,” including Newt Gingrich getting glittered, “triggered the precautions.”

The Register’s Obradovich: “The political landscape has tilted in Iowa since Michele Bachmann last visited the state. Suddenly, her climb to prominence in the Iowa caucuses doesn’t seem quite so steep.” She points out that Bachmann’s speech tonight comes a day before Romney makes his first appearance in the state, but she faces “one potential landmine” – Sarah Palin. “Bachmann’s not a clone of the former Alaska governor, but she would face continual comparisons that could make it tougher to establish herself with voters,” Obradovich writes.

GINGRICH: “Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich continues to back away from criticism he made this month of Representative Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare but he stops short of endorsing the plan,” the Boston Globe says. But he stopped short of an endorsement of the plan, which he still said could be problematic because people should “be very careful not to try to push on to the American people something they don’t yet understand.” And: “[W]hen asked if he supported turning Medicare into a voucher program, as Ryan would, Gingrich made no commitment, saying only that he supports debating options to give individuals more freedom to choose health-savings accounts or other payment models.”

PALIN: AP: “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has authorized a feature-length film about her rise, added staff and recently said she has ‘that fire in the belly’ for a presidential bid -- all steps that fuel speculation she's inching toward a White House run.” She told FOX: “I do have that fire in the belly.”

GOP ’12’s headline on the Palin movie: “New Palin film suggests presidential run.”

PERRY: Asked on FOX if he’s “tempted” to run for president, the Texas governor said, per GOP 12: “Oh, I can't say I'm not tempted, but the fact is: this is something I don't want to do.”

But Yahoo writes this headline: “Rick Perry is rethinking his pledge not to run for president.” “In a press conference Tuesday, the Texas governor notably declined to ‘rule out’ a White House bid, amid calls from Rush Limbaugh and others that he should enter the 2012 race,” the story says. (Hat tip: NBC’s Janet Shamlian.)

PAWLENTY: “Tim Pawlenty on Wednesday talked up his sweeping plans for fiscal reform before a Washington audience while deflecting questions about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) controversial budget proposal,” The Hill reports. And adds this: “Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, made his first appearance in the nation’s capital since officially announcing his presidential candidacy Monday, promising to ‘tell the truth’ to voters on controversial topics.”

Pawlenty gets this not-so-friendly headline from the Washington Post’s fact checker: “Tim Pawlenty’s weak indictment of Obama.” He gets Two Pinocchios and this summation: “Pawlenty’s collection of charges against Obama is a pretty weak brew. Many barely hold up to scrutiny. The so-called “promises” were often not promises made by Obama, while the underlying facts are often exaggerated or in dispute.”

ROMNEY: “On Friday, the former Massachusetts governor will make his first trip to Iowa this year, underscoring what aides call a more focused, disciplined approach to his second attempt at the GOP nomination,” the AP writes, adding: “Advisers also argue that unlike in 2008, a candidate running a lean campaign focused on the economy -- like Romney is – could emerge as the winner over a field of Republicans who emphasize cultural issues.”

The New York Times on Obama’s address to Britain’s Parliament yesterday: “‘The time for our leadership is now,’ Mr. Obama proclaimed, asserting the relevance of the British-American alliance in a world of rising powers and new threats. He rejected the argument that emerging titans like China, India and Brazil ‘represent the future, and the time for our leadership has passed.’ The United States and Britain, he said, ‘remain the greatest catalysts for global action.’”

“Vice President Joe Biden yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s speech challenging the nation to put a man on the moon by lamenting that the United States has sometimes lost its will to pursue similarly big dreams,” the Boston Globe reports.

“Vice President Biden on Wednesday tore into Republicans while saying that conditions favor President Obama's reelection in 2012,” The Hill adds.

The New Hampshire Union Leader: “Calling Republicans a different breed of cat, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday while visiting New Hampshire that President Barack Obama will be successful in his re-election bid for the White House.” More: “The 2012 election is about the future and about restoring the American dream, which is why Biden said he partnered with Obama in 2008. It is about strength in leadership, according to Biden, describing Obama as a leader with a backbone.  Americans watched as Obama executed what he called the ‘boldest undertaking of a single event in modern history,’ referring to Osama bin Laden's death.  With his future on the line, Obama didn't hesitate, said Biden. ‘And, that was the last piece of the puzzle that had to be put in place,’ added the vice president.”

Brendan Nyhan, a scholar at the University of Michigan who will be at Dartmouth after July, writes, “One of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals. Since Watergate, presidential and executive branch scandal has been an inescapable feature of the American presidency, but the current administration has not yet suffered a major scandal, which I define as a widespread elite perception of wrongdoing…  In the 1977-2008 period, the longest that a president has gone without having a scandal featured in a front-page Washington Post article is 34 months.” (Hat tip: PoliticalWire.)

The Boston Globe’s top story: “GOP’s Medicare plan falls in Senate.” The story: “Senate Democrats voted down a Republican budget yesterday along with its controversial plan to partially privatize Medicare, a vote that forced many GOP senators to endorse cuts to a popular program deeply valued by older voters.”

“Senate Democrats enthusiastically rejected the House’s budget blueprint Wednesday in a politically charged vote over the future of Medicare,” Roll Call writes, adding, “A handful of Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Scott Brown (Mass.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — joined Democrats to reject the House budget, 40-57. Paul voted against it because Ryan’s plan still adds $8 trillion to the debt over the next decade. As dramatic as the vote on Ryan’s budget was, the next vote was even more jarring: 97 Senators voted against President Barack Obama’s budget proposal, with none voting in favor.”

The Washington Post notes that most Senate Republicans stood by the Ryan plan. “Wednesday’s vote underscored the pressure being exerted by the party’s tea party base to stick with the plan … and the calculation by Republican officials that they have time before the 2012 election to neutralize any of the Democrats’ political advantages. Moreover, in the Senate, the GOP has some breathing room, with only 10 members up for re­election next year and just one considered vulnerable.”

“A day after a crushing defeat in a New York special election, House GOP lawmakers defended their vote to reform Medicare but grumbled that their leaders must do a better job of messaging,” The Hill writes.

Changing the conversation: “House Republicans will seek to reset the economic-policy debate Thursday, offering a broad plan to boost jobs and growth by easing tax and regulatory burdens. The plan includes a 25% top tax rate on corporations and individuals, compared with the current 35%, as well as higher domestic-energy production, new curbs on government regulations and overhauls of U.S. patent and visa systems to help entrepreneurs and high-tech firms,” the Wall Street Journal says.

The New York Times: “Several lawmakers from both parties on Wednesday accused President Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution by continuing American participation in NATO’s air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, but they struggled with the question of what Congress can or should do about it.”

“In single-handedly blocking reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, Sen. Rand Paul has finally done what many expected when the Kentucky Republican arrived in Congress earlier this year — he's holding the Senate hostage,” Roll Call reports. “And many of his colleagues aren't happy about it.”

ARIZONA: “The Arizona candidate filing deadline is one year from today, but political insiders in the state expect to hear whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) will be running again for federal office much earlier than that,” Roll Call writes.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said her party's victory in the special election for New York's 26th congressional seat shows voters "do not want Republicans to end Medicare...[and balance] all the pain and all the hurt on the backs of our seniors."

The Florida congresswoman refuted claims that third-party candidate Jack Davis helped Democrat Kathy Hochul defeat Republican Jane Corwin.

"We're quite sure quite a few Democratic votes potentially [went to Davis]," Wasserman Schultz said on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." "I think that Kathy probably would have won this race head-to-head, and that the third party candidate's not really so much of a factor."

Wasserman Schultz also responded to Congressman Paul Ryan's statement on Morning Joe Wednesday morning that "the President and his party have decided to shamelessly distort and demagogue Medicare." Ryan was referring to Democratic claims that the Ryan budget will "kill Medicare."

The new DNC chairwoman replied, "Come on. Paul Ryan clearly needs to be doing that. He proposed a plan that even Newt Gingrich called radical." 

Wasserman Schultz said it was Republicans that were doing the distorting.

"The Republicans leading up to the 2010 election actually fabricated what Democrats did to Medicare... We added 12 years of solvency to Medicare, and ensured that it would be better for seniors overall. "

From Carrie Dann and Libby Leist
Senate Democrats forced a vote Wednesday on the controversial fiscal plan drafted by House Budget chief Paul Ryan, splitting the Republican caucus and forcing several vulnerable GOP senators who are up for re-election to go on the record supporting or opposing sweeping changes to the nation’s Medicare system.

The vote on the measure – which failed as expected -- came on the heels of a decisive Democratic victory Tuesday night in a New York special election that focused heavily on the proposed Medicare changes.  

Moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in breaking with Republican leaders to oppose the Ryan plan.

Snowe and Brown are up for re-election in 2012.

Tea Party-backed Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky also voted against the budget, saying its proposed spending cuts are not deep enough.

All Senate Democrats voted no.

The final tally was 40-57. Fifty-one yeas would have been necessary to move the plan forward.

Only four Republicans voted against the Ryan plan when it was passed by the GOP-led House in April. All House Democrats opposed the proposal.

The Senate also voted on three alternative measures, including one to take up President Barack Obama's budget.

No senators voted for the Obama budget; it failed 0 to 97.

Democrats argue that the budget proposed by Obama in February of this year has already been superceded by new plans from the White House and is therefore outdated, but Republicans were quick to highlight that the only Democratic budget to be addressed Wednesday night received not one vote of support.

It looks like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not only holding up the extension of controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that expire at midnight on Friday morning; he's also ruining Memorial Day vacation plans. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attacked Paul on the Senate floor this afternoon, saying if Paul thinks this is a “badge of courage” to hold up the Patriot Act vote, “that’s a mistake” and “the clock is ticking. The ball is in his court”

Paul answered Reid on the floor. "I'm here to discuss and debate the constitutionality of the Patriot Act... Can we not have a debate on a higher plane? A debate over whether or not there should be some constitutional protections, some constitutional procedure?" Paul wants to introduce and debate multiple amendments including one that would exempt certain firearm records from being obtained using the authority provided in the Patriot Act. 

The Senate back-and-forth that has been taking place on this for the last few days caused House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to announce a change in the House schedule. He took to the House floor to break the news to his 431 colleagues that since the Senate may not be able to vote on the bill until early Friday morning, members would need to stick around and get the bill passed before leaving town.

Currently, it looks like the Senate will file cloture on the extension tomorrow morning, which would trigger the need for 30 hours of debate. On non-controversial bills, the 30 hours is often waived, but Paul seems to be sticking to his guns, insisting on the full 30 hours of debate. So, as of now, the House wouldn't be able to get started on passing the bill until some time Friday morning.

The three controversial provisions that are set to sunset Friday include the government's authorization for roving electronic surveillance, the ability to obtain orders from a special court for "any tangible thing" related to terrorism, and surveillance orders for "lone wolf" terrorists who are not formally connected with a terrorist organization. 

If things continue on the current path, those three provisions would sunset, though probably for no more than a day. According to Justice Department contacts, this situation is less than desirable. It would force some of the current surveillance to cease until the president could sign the extension. 

Rep. "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he worried about not having these tools in place, even briefly, if the country were attacked.  "I think it's so important that we don't go through Memorial Day weekend without the resources and the tools to be able to deal with that provision of the law," the congressman said. 

And Reid said, “The inability to reach an agreement has serious consequences. At midnight tomorrow, the Patriot Act will expire. Unless the senator from Kentucky stops standing in the way, our law enforcement will no longer be able to use some of the most critical tools they need to counter terrorists and combat terrorism. If they cannot use these tools –- tools that identify and track terrorist suspects –- it could have dire consequences for our national security.”

Another issue hampering the extension is that President Obama has to physically sign the bill. Once it gets through both chambers, it either has to be flown to the president in Europe or be waiting for him when he gets back to the U.S. 

In a speech outlining his belief in limited government, Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty today said there should be "no sacred cows" when it comes to finding ways to reduce government spending.

But he made an exception after the speech: defense spending.

"The base budget of the United States military, in my view, shouldn't shrink," Pawlenty said to reporters afterward. "The rate of growth can be slowed down, but it shouldn't shrink in absolute terms. And then within that, we need to find more efficiencies and redeploy resources."

On Monday, in Iowa, the former Minnesota governor called for an eventual end to ethanol subsidies. And today, he said, other subsidies should be cut as well. "Now we're not gonna be able to get rid of every one, but we should get rid of as many as we can."

And he praised the House Republican budget plan -- authored by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan -- which would phase out Medicare for those under 55. "I think, in general, you know the direction of it is positive. But I'm gonna have my own plan, and so we're going to have some differences from his plan."

These remarks by Pawlenty came after a speech at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in DC, which last year awarded the then-governor an "A" for his fiscal record.

The thrust of Pawlenty's speech at Cato -- his third since formally announcing his presidential bid on Monday -- emphasized the need to rein in federal workers' pay and benefits.

"So, first thing we have to do is continue to freeze the salary of federal employees – and, in my view, public employees more broadly -- until they're the same or no greater than the private sector employees."

Pawlenty also described his general philosophy of government. "The American story, the story of the greatest and most successful nation in the history of the world, is not a story about the American government. It's largely a story about the American people." He continued, "Our government has been strong and good. But it has to be limited."

Pawlenty concluded his remarks by saying that the way forward won't be easy. "Will it be easy? No, but it never has been easy. You know Valley Forge wasn't easy. And settling the West wasn't easy. And winning World War II wasn't easy. And going to the moon wasn't easy."

Then again, at least two of those -- World War II and going to the moon -- were achieved almost exclusively by the federal government and federal funding.

At least for the meantime, Sharron Angle won't be continuing her fight to reach Capitol Hill after all.

Angle, who was defeated by embattled Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada's 2010 Senate race,  is abandoning her run in a special election in the state's second congressional district.

Her decision comes after a court decision granting the state parties the power to choose candidates in the race to replace Rep. Dean Heller, who was appointed to the Senate seat made vacant by the resignation of former Sen. John Ensign.

"I do not have any desire to participate in a process described by others as a "ballot royale" or a situation where the party central committees choose their nominees because it makes a mockery of the most important constitutional element in exercising freedom," she said in a statement Wednesday.

You can read her full statement here.

Angle added that she is not ruling out a future run for office and that she will make "additional announcements" about her plans soon.

Rep. Paul Ryan acknowledged this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that Medicare played a role in the Republicans’ loss in NY-26.

“The president and his party have decided to demagogue” the issue, the Wisconsin Republican said, calling the campaign against his budget plan “Mediscare.”

When asked to clarify if he believed the “demagoguing” of Medicare played a role, Ryan said, “That’s a big part of it.” He added, that Democrats are “scaring seniors that their current benefits are going to be affected.”

He also acknowledged on Morning Joe, “People in the Republican Party are nervous because of these kinds of ads,” referring to a Web video depicting him throwing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. “You should have seen how many takes it took to make that work,” he joked. He argued, as President Obama did during the health-care debate, that the biggest hurdle is that this is a complicated issue that is difficult to explain. “Once people learn the facts, we are fine,” he claimed.

So what are the facts?

1. Would Medicare continue to exist?

It’s true that anyone 55 and older would not be affected under Ryan’s plan, so a video depicting someone currently older than 55 being thrown off a cliff is misleading.

But Ryan claimed that Medicare would continue to exist. The more important question, however, is in what form?

When asked by one of the Morning Joe panelists, “For people who are 54 years of age or younger, when they're 70 years of age, are they dealing and negotiating with an insurance company?”

“No,” Ryan responded.

“Or are they dealing with Medicare?”

“It's Medicare.”

But as the Congressional Budget Office wrote in its analysis of Ryan’s plan:

“People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.”

In other words, traditional Medicare would, in fact, be phased out for those 54 and younger. They would be significantly impacted. Lost in the back and forth of the exchange with Ryan was that in the same answer, he went on to outline just how much Medicare would change – albeit not explicitly.

“You select the plan that you want,” he said. “You can't be denied. And then Medicare subsidizes your plan. That's how it works for a lot of insurance arrangements. For federal workers, Medicare Advantage and plenty of others work like this. Medicare subsidizes a plan you choose.”

Those who are 65 by 2022, would select private insurance from an exchange system – something similar to that of the health-care overhaul passed last year. Then, the CBO writes: “The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the plans that people selected.”

This would significantly impact those 54 and younger. CBO:

“Under the proposal, the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the traditional program. … That greater burden would require them to reduce their use of health care services, spend less on other goods and services, or save more in advance of retirement than they would under current law.”

In short, in 10 years, people would pay more for health care when they’re seniors under the Ryan plan than they would under traditional Medicare.

And because participation in Medicare would be voluntary, CBO says the number of uninsured seniors would increase:

“[C]osts to individuals (beyond those covered by the premium support payment) would be higher under the proposal than under traditional Medicare, and some individuals would therefore choose not to purchase insurance … the number of older Americans without health insurance would be higher.”

2. Did the idea for “premium support” come from a Bill Clinton commission?
Ryan also claimed on Morning Joe that the idea for “premium support” “came from Bill Clinton's bipartisan commission to save Medicare.” He added that the “Brookings Institution first coined the phrase ‘premium support.’”

While it is true that Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at Brookings and Clinton’s former Office of Management and Budget director, worked with Ryan on coming up with the idea of “premium support,” there are two key differences. She told Ryan she could not support his plan, according to comments she made to Politico last month, because:

1)     Seniors do not have a choice between staying with traditional Medicare or not
2)     The increases in the amount of subsidies are too small

“She said seniors would have the choice between keeping their current form of Medicare or choosing to enter the pool,” Politico wrote. “In Ryan’s version, he did not keep the beneficiaries with the choice to keep what Rivlin called the ‘default option.’”

And: “The other main difference is in the rate of growth in subsidies for beneficiaries entering the new exchange system. ‘In the Ryan version, he has lowered the rate of growth and I don’t think that’s defensible,’ Rivlin said. ‘It pushed too much of the cost onto the beneficiaries.’”

President Obama's Interior secretary is due for a raise, but Louisiana GOP Sen. David Vitter threatened to block that pay increase unless the Interior Department opens more access to Gulf drilling. Democrats say that Vitter's opposition amounts to coercion.

This morning, aides to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar say he asked the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw any effort to address Salazar's planned salary increase over a rare and personal dispute launched by Vitter. Salazar wrote to Reid, that Vitter's demand is "wrong" and called it "attempted coercion."

Vitter is demanding Salazar take action to open more drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, an issue important in his home state after last year's spill. In a letter, Vitter threatened to use a procedural move that would allow him to block Salazar's pay adjustment.

Vitter wrote, "[W]hen the rate of permits issued for new deepwater exploratory wells reaches pre-moratorium levels (so 6 per month), I will end my efforts to block your salary increase."
 
Salazar is entitled to a raise of $19,600, elevating his salary to that of other cabinet posts now that his original Senate term has expired. In long-standing rules, senators appointed to executive branch jobs cannot be paid at the higher rate until their elected terms expire. Secretary Clinton also is under this rule until 2012.

Salazar aides say the secretary had not requested the salary raise himself, and does not want the salary related vote to occur because of Vitter's action. 

Vitter's office says he will not withdraw his objection to the raise at this time and Vitter says in a written statement, "It's just my way of keeping the 'boot on the neck" of Interior until they get job the done. Surely, the secretary can appreciate that approach." That is a reference to Salazar's use of the boot-on-the-neck phrase during oil spill hearings last year.

Today Vitter responded, "I'm glad the secretary has dropped his push for a pay raise; it was truly offensive to Gulf energy workers who are struggling under his policies. Now I hope he starts earning what he already makes and properly issues new permits for much needed drilling in the Gulf."

Aides say Salazar is in Colorado today. Reid's office says he plans to work with Republicans to get Vitter to drop his opposition. 

Senate Majority Leader Reid just issued this statement:

"I have worked with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on this issue for weeks and it is wrong for Sen. Vitter to try to get something in return for moving forward on a matter that the Senate has considered routine for more than a century."Ken Salazar is extremely well-qualified, hard-working cabinet secretary, and deserves better than to be strong armed while trying to do an important job for the American people."

EDITOR'S NOTE: This was shot last week before Scott Brown said he would vote against Paul Ryan's budget.

Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the possibility of Republicans taking over control of the Senate in 2012.

Thanks to Chris from Washington for the question.

Edited by Jason Seher. Produced by Jason Seher, Alexandra Moe, and Ali Weinberg.

In an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, part of which aired on "Nightly News" last night, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stressed that he and the Obama administration agree on more issues that not when it comes to Middle East peace.

"We can have some disagreements, but we agree on a lot more than meets the eye," he said

On Netanyahu's disagreement with President Obama that the 1967 borders, with land swaps, should serve as the basis for negotiations, the prime minister told Mitchell: "I was talking about something that he actually spelled out in the subsequent speech that he gave, that Israel cannot go back to the '67 lines, because those lines are indefensible.  Israel would be nine miles wide. That's half the width of the Washington Beltway. We couldn't defend ourselves there... [I]f you listened to his statement the next day, he said that the line would be different from the 1967 line. And I think that was an important emphasis on the president's part."

Below is the transcript of the entire interview, which will air on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" beginning at 1:00 pm ET.

ANDREA MITCHELL, HOST:  Welcome, Prime Minister. Thank you very much for joining us.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER:  It's good to be with you.

MITCHELL:  Welcome, Prime Minister. Thank you very much for joining us. You...

NETANYAHU:  Thank you, Andrea. It's good to be with you again.

MITCHELL:  You gave a very powerful speech to a joint meeting of Congress and had a very excited, warm reception.  But at the same time, President Obama has said to you that they -- you cannot afford any more delay, that with all of the upheavals, the changes in the Arab world, that Israel is at risk of being isolated, of being left behind.

What do you say to the president?

NETANYAHU:  Well, I think the president shares with me, and I share with him, the desire to move the peace process forward.  And I said in Congress that there's one way to move this thing forward.  President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has to do what I did two years ago. Two years ago, I spoke to my people and I said I will accept a Palestinian state.

I think the president -- President Abbas has to say these same six words to his people, I will accept the Jewish state.  You know what, I'll give him a break, five words -- I accept the Jewish state.  Because I think if he says that, then that will move the process forward. People will say, OK, we have a real peace partner, and for real peace, we're willing to move and move quickly.

MITCHELL:  Prime Minister, the Palestinians have already said that what you said today in Congress, they have said that your speech was a declaration of war...

NETANYAHU:  (INAUDIBLE).

MITCHELL:  -- because, from their perspective, you ruled out any division of Jerusalem, you are keeping the West Bank, you're not negotiating on refugees.  They call that a declaration of war.

Does that leave you and the Palestinians completely at odds, stalemated?

NETANYAHU:  I think that's unfortunate, because I -- and I think you could see from the reaction of both houses of -- both sides of the -- of the aisle and both houses of Congress, people were excited.

You know why?

Because I said the truth.  Because deep down, I mean the reason we don't have peace is the Palestinians have refused to accept a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state.

I agreed to do that.  I said to my people, I'm willing to do it.  The Palestinian leaders should be asked to say these simple words -- I will accept a Jewish state.  Believe me, he says that, all the walls, all the fences, all the problems will be swept aside and we can negotiate a real peace.  I want to have a real peace with somebody who will make peace with me.  I don't want to give him a state for him to continue the battle against Israel.

MITCHELL:  But the Congress (ph)...

NETANYAHU:  I want this conflict to be ended.

MITCHELL:  With all due respect, you, in effect, had home court advantage with the United States Congress.  You have a long record.  You are a great politician.  You know every button to push with Americans, Democrats and Republicans.

But that's not the world.  The wider world is in upheaval.

Isn't Israel at risk of being isolated, of the U.N. taking action in September to declare a Palestinian state?

That's what President Obama and his aides said that they were trying to avert.

NETANYAHU:  Well, the president, indeed, said some important things. First, he said it's not going to be achieved -- peace will be achieved not by an imposition by the U.N., it has to be negotiated by the two parties who are willing to accept each other's statehood.  And that's what I said today in Congress and that's why I think I got his very strong reception.

The world is changing.  We want to make sure that when we make peace, we not only have somebody who will recognize us, but that we know that we have a secure border to defend ourselves, not only to defend the peace, but to defend ourselves if peace unravels.

And I think that we are seeing what is happening in Syria, we're seeing what is happening in other places, in Egypt.  We don't even know whether our peace partners will be there tomorrow.  I mean, really tomorrow, not in a -- an abstract notion.

So when we say we want mutual recognition and defensible borders for Israel, there's really the meat and potatoes of peace.  That's what I said today in Congress.  I was absolutely gratified by the really universal positive response there, because I think these are the right elements for peace, and especially in a changing world.  In a changing world, in an uncertain world, we have to have anchors of security and recognition to fortify the peace.

MITCHELL:  Prime Minister, there was a moment in the Oval Office on Friday.  You and the president of the United States and so many of your early (ph) supporters, friends of Israel, said that you were lecturing him, that it went too far.  You disagree about borders, you did not like what he did, but, in fact, what he said was implicit in what previous presidents have said, they just haven't said it as explicitly and that you shouldn't be lecturing, taking such a hard line with the president of the United States.

In retrospect, do you think you went too far?

NETANYAHU:  Well, I'm sorry it was interpreted that way, because that wasn't my intention. I wasn't lecturing anyone.  I was speaking about the basic things that Israel requires to have peace and security and survival.  I'm the leader of an old nation.  The president said a great nation.  I said he is the leader of a great nation, the American people.
And I have the greatest respect for America and for the office of the presidency.

Believe me, I spent my high school years in Philadelphia.  I visited the Liberty Bell many times.  America is a great nation.  And I have complete respect for it and for its president.

I was speaking about those things that the Palestinians have to accept -- a Jewish state, the fact that the refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel.  We're not going to accept the great grandchildren of Palestinian refugees.  It's crazy.

Some -- everybody knows it.  And I think it's time to say it.  And I think wouldn't want Hamas.  And the president said as much...

MITCHELL:  Well, he agrees with you about Hamas.

NETANYAHU:  I think it was very important...

MITCHELL:  But why do you think...

NETANYAHU:  -- the things that he said.

MITCHELL:  Why do you think he disagrees with you about the borders? He believes that with land swaps that Israel can be well defended, going back to the 1967 borders.

What is it that divides you and Barack Obama?

Why do you think that he has a different vision of what is required for Israel's security?

You don't think that he wants Israel to not be able to defend itself.

NETANYAHU:  Absolutely not.  I think he's committed to the -- Israel's security.  He's said as much and we are cooperating in security areas in ways that the public doesn't know, in many ways.

And I also appreciated the fact that he spoke about the ironclad commitment to Israel's security, not only before the Israel-America lobby, but before the -- the Arab world twice.  And I think that's important.

I was talking about something that he actually spelled out in the subsequent speech that he gave, that Israel cannot go back to the '67 lines, because those lines are indefensible.  Israel would be nine miles wide.  That's half the width of the Washington Beltway.  We couldn't defend ourselves there.

And -- and I was glad that the president emphasized this point, that we're not going back...

MITCHELL:  But he hasn't backed down.

NETANYAHU:  -- to the June 4, 1967 (INAUDIBLE)...

MITCHELL:  He still thinks that those borders can be defended with appropriate land swaps.

NETANYAHU:  Well, if you listened to his statement the next day, he said that the line would be different from the 1967 line.  And I think that was an important emphasis on the president's part.

MITCHELL:  Why were you so angry when you first heard about what he said?

NETANYAHU:  Well...

MITCHELL:  Issuing a statement before you even got on your plane?

NETANYAHU:  Well, I issued the statement.  It gives our positions.  I haven't changed my positions.  It's not a question of anger.  Usually, you don't make decisions in -- in an emotional state.  I don't do it.  I didn't do it this time.

I reiterated our positions.  I have to make sure that Israel can defend itself.  You know, we don't have, we have this tiny country.  I said yesterday or today in the Congress to Vice President Biden, an old friend, I said -- I said it's bigger than Delaware, but that's about it.

So we have to have solid security arrangements.  Israel has to be able to defend itself to defend the peace.  And to defend its life.  And I think the president agrees with that.

MITCHELL:  And what about your conversation with Hillary Clinton, finally?

There are reports that it was as a very contentious, argumentative conversation, when you called her the day before the president's speech, trying to get him to change his -- his speech and not make that reference to the borders.

NETANYAHU:  You know, I've been in diplomacy a long time.  I've been around for some 30 years.  You can't deal with reports of conversations. You have to deal with the substance. I had a -- a very good conversation with the president a couple of hours.  This is the seventh time we were meeting.  We have a lot of time together.

MITCHELL:  And Hillary?

NETANYAHU:  And with Hillary Clinton just as much, I think even more. So what we say privately is something we keep private.  But the important thing, I thought, was that the president made some important statements.  And I appreciated it, that the Palestinians will have to recognize a Jewish state, that Hamas, a terrorist organization bent on dest -- on our destruction, is not a partner, that Israel must maintain its defensible borders and that peace will not be imposed.  It will have to be negotiated between the parties.

I think there's a lot of room for agreement.  We can have some disagreements, but we agree on a lot more than meets the eye.

MITCHELL:  With that, we'll have to leave it there.

Prime Minister, thank you so much. Safe travels.

NETANYAHU:  Thank you, Andrea.

It's good to be with you.

MITCHELL:  You, too.

NETANYAHU:  Thank you.

GOP gets a wake-up call from NY-26 loss… While it’s important not to make too much from a special election and while a third-party candidate played a role in the outcome, you can’t dismiss Medicare’s potency… In retrospect, does what Gingrich said on “Meet” two weeks ago seem so outrageous as a political concern?... Our two questions after last night: How do Republicans respond? And what happens to the NY-26 seat in redistricting?... Obama gets down to business in London… “Palin the Movie” coming to an Iowa theater near you… Pawlenty’s in DC, while Gingrich and Roemer are in NH… Rick Scott’s toxic in FL… And Netanyahu sits down with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

If there was any question what Hochul (D) was running on, or what this election was about for her supporters in the NY-26 race, here's a sign that was floating around the district.

*** The GOP’s wake-up call: There was a reason why Republican strategists convinced their House candidates last year not to support Paul Ryan’s budget “roadmap” (which included an overhaul of both Medicare and Social Security): Touching popular entitlement programs doesn’t make good politics. So it was striking that, just weeks after taking control of the House (in part by accusing Democrats of raiding Medicare), all but four Republicans voted for Ryan’s budget that phases out Medicare, in its current form, for all Americans under 55. And last night, Republicans received a wake-up call about Medicare’s potency with a Democratic victory in the NY-26 special congressional election, which Kathy Hochul (D) won by four points over Jane Corwin (R), 47%-43%, with independent Jack Davis getting 9%. As one Republican who voted for Hochul told the New York Times, “The privatization of Medicare scares me.” In retrospect, what Newt Gingrich said on “Meet the Press” nearly two weeks ago doesn’t seem so outrageous as political concern, does it?

*** 2012 won’t be just like 2010: Of course, it’s important not to make too much out of a single special election; after all, Democrats won a majority of last cycle’s special elections, but got crushed in the midterms. And, of course, Davis’ third-party candidacy played a role (Dems wouldn’t have played in the race without him). But you also can’t dismiss last night’s outcome. Hochul’s 47% in this essentially three-way race outperformed Obama’s 46% in this district in 2008. The GOP outside group American Crossroads acknowledged this reality of the NY-26 race: “What is clear is that this election is a wake-up call for anyone who thinks that 2012 will be just like 2010. It’s going to be a tougher environment, Democrats will be more competitive, and we need to play at the top of our game to win big next year.”

*** The questions going forward: Then again, we didn’t need last night’s special election to prove how powerful Medicare is. We see it in our NBC/WSJ poll. We see with Sen. Scott Brown’s decision not to support the Ryan budget in this week’s upcoming Senate vote. And we see it with GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty not embracing the Ryan budget 100%. Our questions going forward: How do Republicans respond with this wake-up call? How do they manage a Houdini-like escape from a conservative base that WANTS the Ryan plan and a general electorate that DOESN’T? And then there’s this: Can Democrats keep this traditionally GOP-held NY-26 seat next year? What happens to it in redistricting? Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Ryan acknowledged that Medicare played a role in the Republicans’ loss in NY-26. “The president and his party have decided to demagogue” the issue, he said, calling the campaign against his plan “Mediscare.” When asked to clarify if he believed the “demagoguing” of Medicare played a role, Ryan said, “That’s a big part of it.” He added, that Democrats are “scaring seniors that their current benefits are going to be affected.”

*** Obama gets down to business: After two days of beer drinking in Ireland and pomp and circumstance at Buckingham Palace, the business portion of President Obama’s European trip begins today. He has already met with British PM Cameron at 10 Downing Street and held a press conference with him -- where the words of the day on Libya were patience and persistence, and where Cameron wholeheartedly endorsed Obama’s Middle East speech last week. Later today, Obama delivers remarks to Parliament

*** “Palin the Movie”: Coming to an Iowa theater near you: Just when you thought she had gone away -- for 2012 -- she’s back. RealClearPolitics reports that a two-hour film about Sarah Palin’s governorship will debut in Iowa next month, and the movie “is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign.” If she ends up running, this would be a classic Palin way to do it -- big, unconventional, and full of celebrity buzz. If she doesn’t run, it would be classic Palin, too -- a way to gain attention and remain in the political conversation.

*** Circle your calendars: Speaking of June, the GOP field will come into sharper focus that month. First Read learned yesterday that Rick Santorum will officially announce his bid the week of June 5. In addition, a Michele Bachmann aide waved us off of a possible Bachmann announcement this Thursday or Friday in Iowa, despite Bachmann having said after Huckabee’s announcement that her phone was “ringing off the hook” and that she was considering moving up an announcement before June. “The congresswoman has consistently said you’ll hear a decision in June,” Andy Parrish told one of us.

*** On the 2012 trail: Pawlenty delivers an economic speech at the CATO Institute in DC at 2:00 pm and then holds a media avail afterward… Gingrich holds a town hall in Derry, NH and a house reception in Manchester, NH… Buddy Roemer also is in New Hampshire.

*** Toxic Rick Scott: A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s approval rating in the Sunshine State is just 29%, with 57% disapproving (including 37% of Republicans). Ouch. How much are you willing to bet that Team Obama tries to tie Scott to the eventual GOP nominee? 

*** Netanyahu speaks to Andrea Mitchell: In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell yesterday, Israeli PM Netanyahu said, “I think [Obama] shares with me, and I share with him, the desire to move the peace process forward.  And I said in Congress that there's one way to move this thing forward. President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has to do what I did two years ago. Two years ago, I spoke to my people and I said I will accept a Palestinian state. I think President Abbas has to say these same six words to his people.” The full transcript of Mitchell’s Netanyahu interview will be posted on First Read’s Web site later this morning. But here’s and additional thing to chew on: The Israeli news organization Ma’ariv features poll showing that 57% of the Israeli public thinks PM Netanyahu should have said he supported Obama's peace initiative. 

Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 80 days
Countdown to NV-2 special election: 111 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 167 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 257 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up

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.

“Kathleen Courtney Hochul, the Erie County clerk and longtime Democratic figure who defied political experts who had given her little chance of success, ground out a stunning and surprisingly comfortable victory Tuesday in the special election for the House seat in the predominantly Republican 26th Congressional District,” the Buffalo News says. “The results marked a stunning defeat for the GOP in a contest that garnered intense national attention as the first competitive race following the Republican takeover of the House in last November's elections.” She said in her victory speech: "We had the issues on our side. We can balance the budget the right way and not on the backs of our seniors.”

In a separate story, the Buffalo News writes, “For Republicans from Alaska to Maine, including those in Erie County GOP headquarters, the soul-searching already has begun… With Jane L. Corwin, the Republican candidate, struggling under the weight of a Medicare reform plan that she, like 235 House Republicans, supported, a handful of Republicans across the country had started edging away from the proposal even before local voters went to the polls.”

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: “Voters chose Democrat Kathy Hochul over Republican Jane Corwin on Tuesday in the 26th Congressional District, once friendly Republican territory… Hochul, 52, used shoe-leather campaigning and Corwin's support for an unpopular Republican proposal to overhaul Medicare to her advantage. Corwin, 47, wasn't helped by the presence of third place finisher Jack Davis, 78, who tried to fashion a "Tea Party" candidacy, and her own campaign's missteps.”

The New York Times front-pages the outcome. “Democrats scored an upset in one of New York’s most conservative Congressional districts on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the national Republican Party in a race that largely turned on the party’s plan to overhaul Medicare.”

Roll Call calls it an “embarrassing” loss for Republicans, “frustrating the national GOP establishment and its allies, who invested millions of dollars in the contest.” And it sums up the politics: “Democrats cheered the outcome as the direct result of voter dissatisfaction with the House Republican budget plan, which Corwin supported and would fundamentally reshape Medicare. Republicans largely blamed the loss on Davis, a former Democrat who occupied the Tea Party ballot line and spent more than $2.5 million from his personal fortune on a campaign that ultimately siphoned votes away from Corwin.”

The Hill: “The Democrats’ triumph in the GOP stronghold of upstate New York Tuesday has wide-ranging ramifications on the 2012 battles for control of Congress and the White House… While the 2012 general election is a political eternity away, Tuesday's result ensures Democrats will be talking about Medicare for the next year-and-a-half.”

The New York Post’s lead: “Democrat Kathy Hochul last night won a special election to fill a vacant US House seat in a conservative upstate New York district -- snatching victory by campaigning against the GOP plan to transform Medicare.”

BACHMANN: “Bachmann has had difficulty holding on to senior Congressional and campaign staff during her four and a half years on Capitol Hill, a problem that could easily persist in the pressure cooker of a White House bid. However, Bachmann’s inner circle of political advisers has remained constant — a fact often overshadowed by her Congressional staff turnover — and she does boast close relationships with Republican operatives who have presidential campaign experience,” Roll Call writes. Her inner circle: “Media strategist Ed Brookover; Chief of Staff Andy Parrish, a former campaign aide; fundraising consultant Guy Short; and her husband, Marcus Bachmann, a marriage and family therapist.”

CAIN: Gallup: “Newly announced presidential candidate Herman Cain, although still not widely known, has the highest Positive Intensity Score among Republicans of any potential GOP candidate still in the race.”

GINGRICH: “Newt Gingrich's Positive Intensity Score is below average, and is down from the week prior,” Gallup writes.

Politico notes that critics of Gingrich’s Tiffany’s debt are piling on.

The New York Times adds, “To the long list of rich-guy foibles that turned into defining campaign moments — John Edwards’s $400 haircut, John Kerry’s kite-surfing, John McCain’s inability to remember how many homes he owns — let us now add Newt Gingrich’s $500,000 revolving line of credit at the luxury jeweler Tiffany & Company.”

“The way Mr. Gingrich sees it, as he said on ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday, he’s ‘a guy running for president who pays all of his bills,’ who lives within his budget and who is in fact ‘very frugal.’ The way some voters out in the rest of America might see it, he’s a guy who paid more for jewelry than some people pay for their houses.”

HUNTSMAN: The Boston Globe’s Lehigh: “Jon Huntsman has just spent several drizzly days in New Hampshire trying to decide whether he can rain on Mitt Romney’s political parade. So what does the twice-elected former Republican governor of Utah and recently resigned ambassador to China offer that Romney doesn’t? Foreign policy experience, he tells me.” Huntsman adviser John Weaver framed it this way: “He is the only credible conservative in the field who can actually win the general election.”

“Jon Huntsman Jr. kicks off a fundraising swing to California [yesterday], looking to drum up support for his likely presidential bid,” the Washington Post reports. “The former Utah governor will meet with donors in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange County, as likely opponent Mitt Romney continues to show his fundraising edge — last week, he raised $10 million in a single day.”

“In an interview with The [San Francisco] Chronicle Tuesday, Huntsman said he doesn't regret the TV spot for the Environmental Defense Fund, in which he starred with fellow Republican Schwarzenegger and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. He also talked about his support of civil unions for gay couples, immigration, and whether he sees himself as a moderate: "Sometimes people just throw that tag around and say, if you're willing to sit down with people and solve problems -- and bring all people together at the table -- they call you 'moderate,' whether your record would suggest that or not,” he said. “I think I'm a conservative problem-solver."

The Atlantic’s Fallows writes, “As a favor to Huntsman and as a public service, I'll get on the record a video clip that I suspect his own campaign (if/when he declares) won't be rushing to publicize. It is Huntsman's nomination speech for Sarah Palin at the 2008 GOP convention.”

PALIN: After the 2010 elections, Sarah Palin reached out to a conservative filmmaker to make a film about her “extolling” her governorship and lay “to rest lingering questions about her controversial decision to resign from office,” RealClearPolitics’ Conroy reports. “The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run.”

PATAKI: “Former New York Governor George Pataki, who recently started an organization focused on reducing the federal debt, has not ruled out a 2012 presidential run,” the Boston Globe’s Johnson reports, adding, “I’m not a candidate at this point, but down the road, you never say never,” Pataki said during an interview after a speech at New England College. “I’m not running now. …We’ll see what happens over the course of the next month.”

PERRY: Is Rick Perry “thinking” about a run for president? Perry strategist Dave Carney tells the Texas Tribune, per GOP12: “I’m sure he’s thinking about it because it’s just human nature when you have Rush Limbaugh spend 20 minutes talking about you and have all these other people mention you, that you don’t sort of think that’s flattering and think about it. But I don’t see any change in his direction, what he’s planning to do."

ROMNEY: Huffington Post reports that FreedomWorks is trying to knock off Mitt Romney. (Hat tip: GOP12.)

The Romney money machine pumped out $300,000 in Jacksonville, FL.

Romney and the Obama administration sparred yesterday over the administration’s handling of auto company bailouts. So how’s it playing in Michigan? “Romney's prediction, of course, proved incorrect. General Motors and Chrysler both accepted taxpayer money and have enjoyed rather rapid ascents back to profitability,” the Michigan Live’s Oosting writes.

The Detroit Free Press: “Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm used the Chrysler federal loan payback Tuesday to club Republican presidential candidates -- especially former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- for opposing the loans that also helped rescue General Motors in 2009.”

The Washington Post: “Top Democrats have joined a number of Republicans in challenging President Obama’s policy toward Israel, further exposing rifts that the White House and its allies will seek to mend before next year’s election. The differences, on display as senior lawmakers addressed a pro-Israel group late Monday and Tuesday, stem from Obama’s calls in recent days for any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians to be based on boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, combined with “mutually agreed swaps” of territory.”

“Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President Obama’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders,” The Hill reports. “It would be a rare rebuke of the president by the upper chamber and a sign that Democrats are worried about the impact of last week’s speech on the U.S.-Israel relationship and pro-Israel constituents.”

“The Obama administration yesterday hit seven foreign companies, including Venezuela’s state-owned oil company and an Israeli shipping firm, with sanctions for doing business with Iran that helps fund its nuclear program,” the Boston Globe reports.