New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced Thursday he will appoint the state’s Republican attorney general Jeffrey Chiesa to serve as an interim senator to succeed the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

Chiesa, a longtime Christie aide and former federal prosecutor, will not run for the October special election Christie has set, leaving a wide-open GOP field and a growing Democratic primary for the seat. 

Since Christie’s Tuesday announcement that he would call for a special election, the governor has been criticized by both parties for making a shrewd political calculus in picking the October date, with detractors arguing Christie didn’t want a competitive Senate race concurrent with his own re-election bid. 

While Christie is heavily favored over Democrat Barbara Buono, many believe that Christie didn’t want to endanger a crushing margin, helping him make a case for a possible 2016 presidential bid that he’s won big in a solidly blue state. Christie has argued he set the date as early as possible to give New Jersey voters a voice, and defended even the $24 million it will cost to hold another vote just three weeks before the state’s regularly scheduled general election. 

The choice is a safe pick as Christie looked to a longtime confidante and friend to fill the seat for the next four months. Christie has known Chiesa since the 1990s, when the two worked at a law firm together. Chiesa would go on to serve in the U.S. Attorney’s office, and later was Christie’s chief counsel as governor and managed his transition team before Christie appointed him as attorney general in 2012, when he was confirmed  unanimously by the state senate.

“I only have these chances because of the governor,” Chiesa said at a press conference announcing his nomination, saying the governor had first met with him about the position on Monday and, after discussing it with his family, accepted via text message.

Christie praised Chiesa as a man of integrity, saying there were “very few people in my life I know better than Jeff.” 

Chiesa will head to Washington on Monday to assume his duties, and admitted he’s a novice to the legislative process, but that he’s looking forward to learning from other lawmakers.

“These issues are new to me and the details are new to me,” said Chiesa. “I will try to contribute in any way that I can.” 

On the issue of immigration, he did note that border security was an important issue to him, something that’s been a lynchpin as a bipartisan compromise moves through the Senate. 

Chiesa said he’s a “conservative Republican, generally speaking,” but like Christie, he’s supported some policies that could irk some on the right. When he was sworn into office, Chiesa said he would defend the state’s civil union laws as constitutional. Chiesa has also enforced the state’s gun buy-back program.

With Chiesa not seeking a full term though, the field to succeed Lautenberg becomes even more murky, especially on the Republican side. Former Bogota mayor and conservative activist Steve Lonegan, who now directs the New Jersey chapter of Americans for Prosperity and ran against Christie in the 2009 gubernatorial primary, became the first to announce his candidacy on Wednesday.

At the press conference announcing Chiesa, Christie seemed to brush aside his past squabbles with his former primary opponent, but said he wouldn’t speculate on the field on either side.

“Steve hasn’t been a sharp critic of mine,” said Christie. “We’ve agreed of much more than we’ve disagreed on.”

Among Democrats, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who was already running in 2014, and Reps. Frank Pallone and Rush Holt have all made moves to run. Booker still has an edge, but Pallone has a $3.7 million war chest that can’t be ignored. Booker had $1.6 million in his Senate campaign account at the end of March, while Holt has about $800,000 in his House campaign fund.

With the compressed time frame Christie set, candidates only have until Monday at 4 p.m. to submit 1,000 signatures. Christie brushed aside criticism that was too quick a turnaround, saying viable candidates should be able to get those signatures easily.

“You think it’s hard to get 1,000 signatures, wait until you try to get one million votes,” Christie laughed.  

“People should have the right to make a choice,” Christie said, underscoring again that he felt a primary process and election was the right move, and he blamed the state’s seemingly contradictory statues for the ensuing confusion.

“It’s the fault of legislature for setting up less than clear guidance,” said Christie. 

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 6, 2013 1:38 PM EDT

New controversy facing the Obama administration: London Guardian reports that NSA has collected Verizon phone records… Questions we have about the story… Is the support for immigration waning or not? New NBC/WSJ poll numbers show a slight majority (52%) favoring a pathway to citizenship… Also from NBC/WSJ poll: Health care law’s unpopularity hits new highs… And Obama heads to North Carolina, to deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. 

*** A new controversy facing the Obama administration: The big political story that’s driving the day in Washington comes courtesy of the London Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald. “The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an ‘ongoing, daily basis’ to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.” While not specifically confirming any aspects of the Guardian story, a senior Obama administration defended the practice. This official maintains the following: 1) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders (what this appears to be) are classified; 2) the government isn’t listening in on calls -- rather, it’s acquiring data like telephone numbers and lengths of calls; and 3) there’s a “robust legal regime" governing these activities, which includes Congress and the courts. Make no mistake: This will only further the political debate between civil libertarians and the national-security community.  

*** Questions we have: It’s important to note that we don’t have the full story here, but we have plenty of questions. Was Verizon the only carrier issued this order? (Highly unlikely.) Was the motivation behind collecting these telephone records a current national-security threat? Or was it something like building a database -- to be able to pursue future threats? NBC counter-terrorism expert Michael Leiter, on “TODAY”, seemed to hint that this could be more about maintaining a database than anything else. But the fact is, the Obama administration has been silent on this issue for years, which brings up this question: Is this consistent with what Candidate Obama promised in 2007 and 2008? One caveat worth pointing out, however: The 2005-2006 NSA controversy surrounding the Bush administration involved wiretapping, not phone records.  

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama walks down the West Wing Colonnade to announce that current UN Ambassador Susan Rice will replace outgoing National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 5, 2013.

*** Is support for immigration waning or not? Our new NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52% -- saying they favor a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens. This is a drop from our April poll, when 64% said they supported this pathway. But a note of caution: The wording on our question changed. In April, we asked: “There is a proposal to create a pathway to citizenship that would allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States the opportunity to eventually become legal American citizens.” In our new poll, we excluded the words “who have jobs.” Our pollsters believe it’s significant that a majority still backs the pathway even after the language change. More importantly, when told in the current poll that the proposed pathway to citizenship includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65%, including 58% of Republicans.   

*** Upset or happy if Congress doesn’t pass a bill? But if you’re a supporter of the immigration reform legislation, you might be a little troubled by this finding: Respondents are divided if they want Congress to pass a bill this year. Per the poll, 47% say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54%). But an equal 47% say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53%). (Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset. Yet note that there’s not a whole lot of intensity to these current immigration numbers: 21% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass legislation, and 26% said they would be NOT AT ALL UPSET if that happens. But compare that to a gun question we also asked: 34% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass a background-check law, versus 31% who said NOT AT ALL UPSET. Bottom line: The immigration debate isn’t as highly charged as the gun debate.  

*** Health care law’s unpopularity reaches new highs: Meanwhile, just months before President Barack Obama's signature health-care law fully goes into effect next year, it remains unpopular with the American public, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll, with 49 percent saying they believe the law is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37% say the plan is a good idea. The poll also finds that 38 percent say they and their family will be worse off under the health-care law, which also is the highest percentage on this question that dates back to 2010. By comparison, 19% say they'll be better off, and 39% say the law won't make much of a difference. The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status. By a 35%-to-11% margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health-care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67% to 4%. What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. Bottom line here: The Obama White House has a massive PR problem with health care. The biggest reason: Opponents of this law have been very vocal, while supporters have done very little to drum up support. The president doesn’t sell it that often, and many arms of the Democratic Party essentially avoid it. Politics abhors a vacuum, and opponents -- not supporters -- have filled the health-care vacuum. 

*** Carolina in mind: Lastly, President Obama heads to Mooresville, NC, where he’ll deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. Per the White House, Obama “will travel to Mooresville Middle School in Mooresville, North Carolina, to deliver remarks and see first hand the school's cutting edge curriculum that maximizes the benefits of technology and digital learning.”  

IMPORTANT PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE (!!!): Love politics? Have a cell phone camera? Want to be on national TV? Then you should send in a good morning greeting to your friends at The Daily Rundown. It couldn’t be easier and everything you need to know is right here:

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. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law remains unpopular with the American public just months before it fully goes into effect, according to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

The poll shows 49 percent of Americans say they believe the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37 percent say the plan is a good idea.
 
As the political battle over implementation of the law heats up in Washington, the numbers mark an increase in unpopularity since July 2012, right after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obama’s overhaul. Back then, 44 percent of NBC/WSJ poll respondents called it a bad idea, vs. 40 percent who called it a good one.

Mandel Ngan / Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks on the Affordable Care Act in this file photo from May 10, 2013 in the East Room of the White House.

GOP leaders have been unrelenting in their calls to reverse the law. "For the sake of my constituents in Kentucky and for the sake of Americans across the country, I urge my friends on the other side to join with Republicans and stop this ‘train wreck’ before things get even worse," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor in April.

Obama countered earlier this year, "Despite all the hue and cry and 'sky is falling' predictions about this stuff, if you've already got health insurance, then that part of Obamacare that affects you, it’s pretty much already in place. And that’s about 85 percent of the country.” 

"What is left to be implemented is those provisions to help the 10 to 15 percent of the American public that is unlucky enough that they don’t have health insurance," he added. 

For individuals, the current poll also finds 38 percent of respondents saying that they (and their families) will be worse off under the health care law. That’s the highest percentage of respondents to express a negative outlook toward “Obamacare” since 2010, when the president signed this signature piece of legislation into law following an extended, bruising battle in Congress. 

By comparison, 19 percent say they'll be better off, and 39 percent say the law won't make much of a difference. 

The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status.  

By a 35 percent-to-11 percent margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67 percent to 4 percent.

What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. 

Majority backs pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants

Meanwhile, with bipartisan immigration reform legislation expected to hit the Senate floor next week, the NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52 percent -- saying they support a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

When told that the proposed pathway to citizenship under the legislation includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65 percent, including 58 percent of Republicans. 

But respondents are divided over whether Congress should pass an immigration bill by the end of the current Congress: 47 percent say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54 percent).

But an equal 47 percent say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53 percent).

Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform.

Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted May 30-June 2 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Related Stories

Poll: Obama standing remains steady amid controversies

Christie's appeal rises above polarized nation, NBC/WSJ poll shows

As lawmakers paused Wednesday to remember Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Vice President Joe Biden eulogized the late New Jersey lawmaker as a man who “worked like hell” on behalf of the American people – and who loved both the Senate and Amtrak almost as much as Biden himself. 

“Like me, he loved the Senate,” Biden said of the late senator, who died Monday at the age of 89. “Because he saw it as the place where he could do more – with the financial success he had, all the philanthropy he had, the influence he had in the community – he believed, and he was right, there was no place he could do as much to impact the people that he cared about than the United States Senate.”

Lautenberg was the oldest member of the Senate and the last World War II veteran to serve in the chamber. During almost 30 years on Capitol Hill, he authored drunk driving laws, passed legislation to ban smoking on airplanes, fought for public transit and worked to curb gun violence.

Seth Wenig / AP

The casket containing the body of U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg is carried into the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Wednesday, June 5, 2013.

On Wednesday afternoon, Lautenberg’s casket will be transported to the New Jersey train station that bears his name and will travel to Washington, D.C. on an Amtrak train. There, it will lie in repose in the United States Capitol in the Lincoln Catafalque -- built for the coffin of Abraham Lincoln --  before his burial Friday at Arlington National Cemetery.

Biden, who was serving his second term when Lautenberg was first elected in 1982, said he advised him to run for re-election before the ailing lawmaker announced in February that he would not seek re-election in 2014 due to his failing health. 

In their remarks earlier in the services, Lautenberg’s children indicated that their father regretted the decision to announce his coming retirement and wished that he could “take the whole thing back” as recently as a few weeks before his death.

“Your dad never quit,” Biden told them.  “He never quit anything. He never gave up. He never gave in.”

Noting that both men loved the trains that run along the East Coast corridor, Biden at one point recalled running at break-neck speed for the train he took every day, only to be told by Amtrak staff that “don’t worry, you’re OK, we’re holding it for Lautenberg.”

Biden also won prolonged laughter for his opening comment on speaking after hours of emotional tributes from Lautenberg’s former colleagues – including former senator and secretary of State Hillary Clinton – and family members.

“If there’s a definition of redundant, I’m it,” he remarked.

A contingent of former and current senators and staff members were also on hand for the ceremony, as were New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker – who coveted Lautenberg’s seat even before the octogenarian senator announced his expected retirement.

Calling him “a steadfast champion of women’s rights and opportunities,” Clinton said Lautenberg was considered an honorary member of the Senate Women’s Caucus.

“He loved and he was loved,” Clinton said after lauding his accomplishments in defense of the nation’s environment, veterans and children.  “And after all, that’s what makes a great life.”

Sen. Robert Menendez, now New Jersey’s senior senator, called his departed colleague “one of the most tenacious men I have ever met” and joked about Lautenberg’s love for pop superstar Lady Gaga, whose concerts he attended both for a political fundraiser and for his 86th birthday celebration.

“Bonnie, I’m sure you know he loved you dearly,” he told Lautenberg’s widow. “Even Lady Gaga couldn’t lift a finger to you.”

Seventeen members of the Senate were listed as honorary pallbearers for the departed senator and the upper chamber was not in session Wednesday as members paused to remember their colleague.

Lautenberg is survived by his wife, six children and 13 grandchildren.

Wondering how he would go on without his dad, son Josh Lautenberg said his father would have advised the family “to move forward without hesitation, run the stairs, walk fast and grab a hot dog on the way." 

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 5, 2013 2:14 PM EDT

NBC/WSJ poll shows Obama has absorbed the punch from the trio of controversies… But it also contains warning signs for him -- he can’t afford any more punches… What’s keeping his overall numbers steady… Good news, bad news on the economy… Down on American institutions… On Chris Christie, bipartisanship, and that NJ special election… Obama to tap Susan Rice as national security adviser… And Mr. Smith does go to Washington.

*** Warning signs for Obama: One of Barack Obama’s best attributes as a politician has been his ability to take a punch -- or several. Think of Jeremiah Wright and the Hillary-McCain tag team during the spring of ’08. Or the debt-ceiling debacle in the summer of ‘11. Or the reaction to the president’s first debate in the ’12 race. According to our new NBC/WSJ poll, President Obama has absorbed the political punch from the trio of controversies (IRS/Benghazi/leak investigations) that have hit his administration in the last few weeks. His overall job-approval rating stands at 48%, up 1 point since April, and his fav/unfav rating is at 47%-40%, which is essentially unchanged since that last poll. But there are also warning signs that he’s gone a bit wobbly from the punch and can’t afford any more missteps; that job rating is not as strong or steady as it looks when you lift the hood. For example, Obama’s numbers among independent respondents have declined -- just 28% approve of his job, which is down from 41% in February and 37% in April. What’s more, he’s also seen an erosion in his numbers on presidential qualities (like being a strong leader, being honest and straightforward, and changing business as usual in Washington), although they’re above where they were after the debt-ceiling fight in 2011. The president’s ability to push Congress publicly to get some of his agenda passed will be curtailed if he can’t improve those numbers with political independents. 

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama walks across the South Lawn after arriving on Marine One at the White House in Washington, DC, June 4, 2013

*** What’s keeping his numbers steady: However, two things have appeared to keep his overall numbers steady. One, his base is still with him: 88% of African Americans, 63% of Latinos, 57% of 18 to 34 year olds, and 52% of women approve of his job. Two, most Americans don’t DIRECTLY fault the president for the controversies. Just 41% hold Obama “totally” or “mainly” responsible for the Benghazi attack; 37% say the same of his culpability in the Justice Department’s subpoena of reporters’ phone records; and only 33% directly blame him for the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding groups. And there’s a partisan divide to these numbers: Fewer than one-quarter of Democrats hold Obama directly responsible for these three controversies, versus a majority of Republicans who do so -- including 68% for the Benghazi attack. That said, 50% of Americans -- including half of independents -- believe that Republicans in Congress are justified in their investigations into the Obama administration; 42% disagree, arguing that GOP inquiries are simply partisan attacks. For the most part, hard-core supporters and opponents of the president are viewing the controversies through their own political beliefs.

*** Good news, bad news on the economy: The NBC/WSJ poll also contains some brighter news for the administration when it comes to the economy. While only 36% say they’re satisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, that’s the highest number on this question since 2006. What’s more, the percentage believing the United States is still mired in an economic recession is at its lowest level since Obama became president. (Technically, the recession ended in 2009.) But if the public has a slightly brighter outlook about the economy, it doesn’t appear to be giving Obama any credit. Just 33% say they are either “extremely” or “quite” confident that the president has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy. What’s more, nearly seven-in-10 respondents say that the Dow Jones Industrial Average hitting new highs is an indication that corporations and the wealthy are doing better -- but not the economy overall. By the way, it’s worth nothing that, for the 42^nd straight survey, more folks tell us the country is headed in the WRONG direction than those who believe the country is on the RIGHT track.  

*** Down on American institutions: And the public continues to sour on many of America’s largest institutions. A combined 67% have either a “great deal” or “quite of bit” of confidence in the U.S. military, which is currently under fire for allegations of sexual assault against females. But that percentage is down from 76% in May 2012. In addition, 29% have a lot of confidence in the automobile industry (up 1 point from May 2012); just 17% have confidence in the federal government (up 1 point); only 16% have confidence in the national news media (up 1 point); and 12% have confidence in large corporations (down five points from May ’12). And just 10% of the public has confidence in the IRS.

*** On Chris Christie, bipartisanship, and that NJ special election: Given this pessimism about American institutions and the government itself, here is perhaps the most striking finding from the entire poll: Bipartisanship does get rewarded. Per the poll, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie enjoys nearly equal appeal among Democrats, Republicans and even independents: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 40% of Republicans, 41% of indies, and 43% of Democrats say they view the Republican governor in a positive light. By comparison, 84% of Democrats in the same poll view Obama favorably, versus just 11% of Republicans who do. Even Hillary Clinton is seen as a polarizing figure -- 83% of Democrats view her positively, compared with just 15% of Republicans. The potential warning sign for Christie and 2016, however, is that Republicans view someone like Jeb Bush more favorably (48%-7%) than Christie (40%-16%). As far as yesterday’s news of Christie setting an Oct. 2013 date for the special election to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the decision angered national Republicans (who wanted the interim Senate pick to remain through 2014) and New Jersey Democrats (who wanted the GOV and SEN contest to be on the same ballot). But it pleased Senate Majority Harry Reid (who likely gets a Democratic senator back after October) and New Jersey Republicans (who want strong coattails from Christie in the Nov. 2013 election). Make no mistake: Christie’s decision yesterday was in the best interest of Chris Christie, and that interest is in having LARGE coattails to win down the ballot in New Jersey.  

*** Obama to tap Susan Rice as national security adviser: At 2:15 pm ET, we’ve learned, President Obama will announce that national security adviser Tom Donilon is stepping down, and that he’s replacing Donilon with UN Ambassador Susan Rice. And NBC’s Peter Alexander reports that Obama will nominate former foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power to be UN ambassador. Obama tapping Rice as national security adviser -- a position that doesn’t need Senate confirmation -- will ruffle some Republicans who will shout, “Benghazi!!!” But those released Benghazi talking-points emails make it clear that Rice wasn’t responsible for crafting them. Also, Rice’s loudest Benghazi critics often forget that she’s closer to John McCain and Lindsey Graham when it comes to the use of American power. And folks, don’t calls this a shakeup: That Donilon was going to step down in the second term and that Rice was going to replace him was perhaps the worst-kept secret in Washington. As for Power, she does face Senate confirmation, but she should have a fairly easy time, as she has quietly been reaching out to key Senate Republicans for months. One thing Power will have to deal with today: Everyone bringing up her infamous “monster” comment about Hillary Clinton during the ‘08 campaign. The two patched things up a long time ago, but the two aren’t exactly close. 

*** Mr. Smith does go to Washington: As expected, Republicans easily triumphed in the contest to fill the congressional seat that ex-Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) vacated. Roll Call: “State Speaker Pro Tem Jason Smith won the special election in Missouri’s 8th District on Tuesday night, keeping the conservative territory in GOP hands. Smith defeated state Rep. Steve Hodges, 68 percent to 27 percent.” 

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">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 http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

In a decision with implications for his own re-election this fall, the next presidential campaign and the GOP in Washington, New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday called for a special election to be held this year to choose the successor to the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

Christie announced at a press conference that he had opted against appointing a successor to Lautenberg to serve until the 2014 election, and scheduled a general election on Oct. 16. The primary will be held in August. Christie also said he would appoint an interim senator to serve between now and November, though he explained that he had not decided on that temporary appointee yet.

With this decision, Christie is potentially helping create the conditions for a big win in his re-election contest against Democrat Barbara Buono this November.  Without a contested Senate campaign happening at the same time as his own re-election, turnout among Democrats is likely to be far lower, allowing Christie to run up the margin of victory in a race he is already a big favorite to win.

That, in turn, could make him look like a more formidable presidential candidate in 2016 should he choose to run.

Julio Cortez / AP

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie talks to the press after casting his primary election vote, Tuesday, June 4, 2013, in Mendham Township, N.J.

The governor argued that a special election is the fairest choice to quickly fill the open seat.

“This is about guaranteeing the people of New Jersey both a choice and a voice in the process,” Christie said. “The right thing to do is to let the people decide, and let them decide as soon as possible.”

The primary will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 13 – a decision Christie stressed would take the choice away from party bosses.

“I will not permit the insiders and a few party elites to determine who the nominee of the Republican Party and the Democratic party will be,” Christie said.

The governor was openly defiant that such a strategy was the reason for his decision, saying he followed the letter of the law to let the people pick, and political calculations played no role in his timetable.

But Christie’s decision to hold a special election in October could also be a gamble, leaving the governor open to criticisms of making a self-serving decision and causing a hefty financial cost to the state that could run as high as $24 million for the special election.

Christie said he wasn’t aware of what the cost would be – but in typical Christie fashion, said it didn’t matter.

“I don’t know what the cost is, and quite frankly I don’t care,” he said. “The cost cannot be measured against the value of having an elected representative in the United States Senate when so many important issues are being debated this year."

While many Democrats accused Christie of needlessly inviting an extra cost upon New Jersey taxpayers – all while avoiding a special Senate election on the same day that voters decide on Christie’s own re-election – the governor’s decision won the praise of the Senate’s top Democrat.

“I think it’s the right thing to do,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Senate Democrats seemed pleased by Christie’s decision, while gleefully pointing out the governor likely frustrated his own party with his timetable.

“Republicans have not won a Senate race in New Jersey in more than 40 years. Their only shot was an appointee who had a year and a half to establish themselves before an election in 2014,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Matt Canter. “With this news I assume operatives at the NRSC are busy planning Christie’s defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire right now.”

The option was the least preferable for Senate Republicans, who were not only looking forward to having an extra vote in the Senate for an extended period but also hoped they could make this contest competitive. 

The choice of an October special is likely to placate no one on either side of the aisle, and enrage conservatives even more than Democrats – causing him headaches in a potential 2016 GOP primary.

Republicans made no secret they preferred a 2014 special election, allowing a Republican to take the Democrat-held seat for over a year and a half, and allowing a strong GOP candidate, preferably one appointed by Christie, to build up a moderate voting record and robust campaign.

With Christie on the ballot this November, Republicans at the state level especially hoped for down-ballot help in state legislative races. GOP strategists also feared that a special election would help Democratic turnout, especially among African Americans, if popular Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who was already running for Lautenberg’s seat, is the nominee.

Democrats, however, hoped for a November 2013 contest for exactly the opposite reason. Buono hasn’t been able to raise money and mount a serious challenge to the governor, but if a competitive special election drove up turnout among Democrats, they could at least cut the margin and minimize Christie’s coattails on other races.

Possibly the biggest risk Christie faces though – tarnishing his fiscally conservative brand and saddling the state with two elections that could cost upwards of $24 million. According to an advisory opinion from the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, obtained by NBC News, the cost for both a primary and a general is approximately $11.9 million each, instead of holding them concurrent with the November 5, 2013, general election.

Democrats will be all too eager to make that point in his re-election contest, where Christie has campaigned on cutting spending as governor. An NBC News/Marist poll from last month showed the incumbent with a more than two-to-one lead over Buono, with 58 percent approving of his handling of the state’s budget.

Despite being close to Booker, Christie may have done inadvertent harm to the Democrat’s bid. Booker’s now all but certain to face a primary, likely from Rep. Frank Pallone and maybe even Rep. Rush Holt. And because of the timing of the election, neither would have to give up their safe House seats to run. Booker is still the favorite going into a Democratic primary, but he’ll have a competitive race that might have been avoided otherwise. A later race would have given Booker a bigger financial edge, and could make it harder for him to distance himself from his advance Senate announcement and the lashing the late Lautenberg gave him. And, Booker too could answer in a Democratic primary for his cozy relationship with Christie.

The October decision could save Christie legal wrangling and a court battle over the date, particularly if he had tried to wait until 2014. Democrats could still wage legal action, wanting a November contest, and while Republicans haven’t publicly raised the specter of suing, legal action against one of their most prominent Republicans isn’t exactly the press Christie, or the GOP, would want.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 1:43 PM EDT

Setting the stage for what is likely to be a months-long struggle with Senate Republicans, President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated two attorneys and a judge to fill the vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – considered to be the nation’s second-most powerful court since so many federal regulations are litigated before that court.

Accusing Senate Republicans of obstructing his judicial nominees with “blatant” political maneuvers, Obama called for an up-or-down vote on the three. “The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent,” the president said in remarks at the White House. “They can approve a president’s nominee or they can reject  president’s nominee. But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.”

Noting that his first-term nominees overall waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of former President George W. Bush, Obama said, “time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay, and even block, qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.” 

“I recognize that neither party has a perfect track record here,” Obama said but added, “what’s happening now is unprecedented.  For the good of the American people it has to stop.”

Obama’s picks for the D.C. Court of Appeals are:

• Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now teaches at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington;
• Patricia Ann Millett, an appellate lawyer who has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. Millett served in the Justice Department for years before joining a law firm in Washington.
• Judge Robert Wilkins, a federal trial court judge in Washington and a former public defender.

Last month, the Senate unanimously confirmed Sri Srinivasan, Obama’s nominee to the D.C. Circuit, and with eight active-duty judges, some Republicans argue the court now has enough judges to handle its workload.

In March, Caitlin Halligan, another Obama nominee to the court, withdrew after Senate Republicans blocked her from a getting a confirmation vote. The National Rifle Association opposed Halligan due to her involvement while Solicitor General for the state of New York in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers.

Prior to the Srinivasan confirmation vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “You have a majority on that court that is wreaking havoc with the country,” Reid adding that with further GOP delays perhaps the judges on that court will issue more opinions in the next couple of weeks favorable to the Republicans – as that court did in January when it ruled that Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional.

Commenting Monday on reports that Obama would nominate three people to fill the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, Sen. Charles Grassley, R- Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda. No matter how you slice it, the D.C. Circuit ranks last, or almost last, in nearly every category that measures workload.”

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 10:48 AM EDT

What Chris Christie is thinking… Announcement for scheduling a special election for Lautenberg’s Senate seat could come as early as today… Christie’s list of names for an interim Senate pick… A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13?... Obama to begin public fight over judges at 10:30 am ET Rose Garden ceremony… House holds another IRS hearing at 10:00 am ET… Senate looks into military sexual assaults… New NBC/WSJ poll comes out first thing tomorrow morning… And Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Voters head to the polls in Missouri to replace ex-Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).

*** What Chris Christie is thinking: A day after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) passed away, the conversation now turns to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) pick to temporarily fill the Senate seat. And it’s an upcoming move that has political implications -- both in the state and nationally, and for this year, 2014, and possibly 2016. According to Republicans familiar with the process, the first issue is how long the interim pick would serve with the scheduling of a special election. Expect Christie to announce his intention of how to proceed regarding the special election timing in the next few days, and maybe as early as today. The reason: The law appears to be murky, with conflicting statutes on the books. Had Lautenberg died a month ago, the law would have been clear about holding a special election this year. Had Lautenberg passed away next month, the law would have been clear about waiting until Nov. 2014. For now, according to these Republican sources, Christie is operating on a 2013 timeline. So that means primaries in August and a general election either in October or simultaneously with the gubernatorial race in November. The strictest reading of the law, per these Republicans, suggests October for the general -- which would keep the Senate special separated from Christie’s re-election contest. But holding an October special would also cost the state money. 

Jeff Zelevansky / Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images file

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony at Essex County Community College on May 7, 2013 in Newark, N.J.

*** A complicated matter: Obviously, holding a senate race at the same time as his re-election complicates Christie’s efforts to run up the score in his re-election and it could even put his re-election at real risk. But wasting money on an election just weeks before a regularly scheduled one is not exactly the most fiscally conservative thing to do. The perfect REPUBLICAN solution for Christie would be to wait unti,l 2014 but his folks believe that reading of the law would never hold up in the state courts and he’d be ordered to hold a 2013 election.

*** Christie’s list of names for an interim pick: The Republicans close to this process assume that no matter how Christie interprets the law regarding the special election, someone will sue and get courts to clarify. And that’s why Christie wants to set things in motion ASAP -- to speed up the legal process for anyone wanting to challenge his reading of the law. As for candidates the governor might appoint to temporarily fill the Senate seat before the special election, Christie’s first choice is former Gov. Tom Kean Sr. (R); in fact, we understand the two men will meet soon about it.  Kean Sr. is in a tier all by himself. The next tier of potential appointees includes Kean’s son, Tom Kean Jr. (whom Bob Menendez beat in ’06, 53%-44%) Joe Kyrillos (whom Menendez thumped in ’12), and the state’s current lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno. Christie potentially picking Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) is possible -- if he would be willing to give up his safe congressional seat, which is unlikely. And LoBiondo is thought of as the only serious GOP member of Congress on short list. One other thing: Christie would prefer this interim pick run in the special election, so Kean Sr. agreeing to hold the seat but pass on a run IS NOT Christie’s preference.

*** A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13? What's interesting about the likely quick special election is that it doesn't preclude the 2014 race -- that is, you’ll have a special Senate election this year and then another race for the seat in 2014. But this also means that Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who’s widely assumed to jump into this special election, would probably face a primary fight now from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ).Why? Well, Pallone can run for the Senate seat in 2013 without risking his House seat. So it’s a free shot for the Democratic congressman. Of course, the state party could decide against holding a party primary and choose the nominee at a convention of sorts. There will be national pressure on New Jersey Democrats to rally around Booker, whether Pallone likes that or not

*** Obama begins public fight over judges: At 10:30 am from the White House Rose Garden today, President Obama will do something we don’t remember seeing him do before -- announcing judicial picks to the public (other than ones to the Supreme Court). Per the Washington Post, the president will nominate “two female lawyers and an African American federal judge Tuesday to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” They are “veteran appellate lawyer Patricia A. Millett; Georgetown University Law Center professor Cornelia ­T. L. Pillard; and Robert L. Wilkins, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made.” Obama has been criticized by many Democrats publicly and privately for not making a bigger public push for his judicial nominations. Yet by nominating three appellate picks at once -- after Republicans filibustered a previous nominee, Caitlin Halligan -- Obama “will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees,” as the New York Times wrote last week. One additional thing to keep in mind: If Obama is to wage a battle over judges, it has to come in the next 18 months. Why? After 2014, it’s likely there will be fewer Senate Democrats and maybe even a GOP-controlled Senate.

*** House holds another IRS hearing: Another day, another congressional hearing looking into the controversies surrounding the Internal Revenue Service. At 10:00 am ET, the House Ways and Means Committee holds a hearing featuring groups who were targeted in their application for tax-exempt status because of their conservative-sounding names. The groups include the Laurens County Tea Party, Wetumpka Tea Party, San Fernando Valley Patriots, and Linchpins of Liberty. This comes one day after the new acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, testified on the Hill, vowing “to work quickly and with the cooperation of Congress to implement reforms to the tax agency,” NBC’s Mike O’Brien reported yesterday. 

*** Senate looks into military sexual assaults: Also on Capitol Hill today, the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing at 9:30 am ET to discuss pending legislation on sexual assaults in the military. As NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski noted on “TODAY” this morning, the hearing comes after Defense officials confirmed three Naval Academy football players who are under investigation for allegedly assaulting an unconscious female midshipman at a party last year. The victim's attorney claims that when her client reported the incident, she was disciplined for drinking but the three football players went unpunished and were permitted to play out the season.

*** NBC/WSJ poll coming out! How does the public view American institutions like the military and IRS after these recent stories? They have damaged President Obama’s political standing? We’ll be releasing a brand-new NBC/WSJ poll on these subjects and more first thing tomorrow morning.

*** Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Lastly today, Missouri voters go to the polls to fill the congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). Jessica Taylor writes: “Republican state Rep. Jason Smith is the overwhelming favorite to succeed former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in a little-noticed special election in the expansive southeastern rural Missouri district. Emerson resigned earlier this year to take a job as CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Smith faces fellow Democratic state Rep. Steve Hodges on the ballot, along with two other minor party candidates. But the overwhelming GOP tilt of the conservative district (Mitt Romney wont the district by 34 points) makes him essentially a lock for Tuesday’s special election.”

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. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

The new acting commissioner of the IRS vowed Monday to work quickly and with the cooperation of Congress to implement reforms to the tax agency in response to the revelations that conservative groups had been targeted for scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status.

Danny Werfel, the new IRS chief appointed by President Barack Obama following the explosive revelations about targeting, blamed his predecessors in IRS management for acting too slowly to halt the abuses. And as the controversy continues to reverberate throughout Washington, Werfel told a panel of lawmakers that he had directed his team to quickly implement the reforms laid forth by an inspector general’s report first outlining the problems.

Werfel acknowledged that trust in the IRS had eroded; 66 percent of Americans said they disapproved of how the IRS conducted its work, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week.

“My primary mission is to restore that trust,” he told lawmakers. 

Monday’s hearing, convened by a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, was ostensibly about reviewing the money budgeted to the IRS to help it carry out its mission. But that hardly slowed committee Republicans in voicing their persistent outrage at the actions of IRS officials. 

“Before Congress spends one more dime on the IRS, we need to know how the IRS spends the money it has already,” said Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., at the outset of today’s hearing, the first of three scheduled for this week in the GOP-dominated House. 

Republicans are hopeful that they can continue to stoke outrage at the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups to use as a political cudgel against the Obama administration, which has at times struggled to explain its knowledge of and response to the misconduct. The uproar quieted last week while Congress was out of town, but the GOP has leaned back into the controversy after returning to Washington.

Werfel, who is in the somewhat unenviable position of navigating the tax agency through its moment of crisis, made his first appearance before Congress in his new role amid the furor.

“The use of certain political labels to determine how applications would be handled resulted in applications being inappropriately singled out for additional scrutiny,” Werfel said. “Moreover, there was a fundamental failure by IRS management to prevent this inconsistent treatment and ensure that it was halted once management became aware.”

Werfel’s appearance also comes ahead of a new report expected from the inspector general’s office later this week which is said to detail lavish spending on IRS conferences and official business. The revelations could threaten to add to outrage toward the agency.

Still, as committee Democrats pressed to direct more spending toward the IRS, which has suffered from budget cuts that arguably hampered its ability to enforce tax law, Werfel resisted the notion of giving the agency a blank check.

“The solution here is not more money,” he said. Rather, Werfel argued that the IRS should first identify the scope of its responsibilities, and then seek the appropriate level of spending it would need to meet its mission.

That testimony won a quip from the influential Republican in charge of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

“Mr. Werfel, I'm beginning to like you when you say you don't want more money,” said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., the committee chairman.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 4:14 PM EDT

As New Jersey stops to mourn the death of longtime Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., political speculation has turned to whom Republican Gov. Chris Christie will appoint to succeed the late senator — and for how long.

Christie’s upcoming decision could have consequences on his re-election bid this year, where he’s the overwhelming favorite, as well as on any potential run for president in 2016 or beyond.

While Christie gets to select an interim successor to replace Lautenberg in the Senate — potentially reducing the Democrats’ majority in the chamber – there appear to be two conflicting sections in New Jersey law mandating when a special election must be held.

One New Jersey provision states that if the vacancy occurs more than 70 days before a regularly scheduled statewide general election (so before Aug. 27, 2013), that vacancy would be filled on the next statewide general election, or Nov. 5, 2013, since the Garden State holds off-year elections.

Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images file

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony at Essex County Community College on May 7, 2013 in Newark, New Jersey.

But Republicans point to a different statute, which says that the election would be held on the next general election only if the vacancy occurs 70 days before the state’s primary, which is being held June 4, 2013. In this case — which Republicans clearly prefer — the special election would be held in November 2014, when Lautenberg’s seat, which he'd already announced an intent to relinquish, will be up anyway.

Whichever statute wins the day could be the difference of a Republican serving just a handful of months as New Jersey’s next senator in deep-blue New Jersey — or a Republican serving for at least a year and half through 2014.

According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the state Office of Legislative Services said in a memo that it believes any appointment Christie makes would serve until November 2014, when Lautenberg’s full six-year term expires.

Democrats say they’re closely reviewing what are “clearly conflicting laws,” but state Democrats are especially pushing for a 2013 special election, hoping turnout could boost their ticket.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker had already announced he would run for the Senate seat in 2014 — passing up the opportunity to not only challenge Christie, with whom he already enjoys a close relationship, but also announcing before Lautenberg had officially said he would retire, severely rubbing Lautenberg and many of his allies the wrong way. Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone is also heavily weighing a bid, and Rep. Rush Holt could still run as well.

If he does choose to make an appointment, Christie, a heavy favorite for re-election this fall over Democrat Barbara Buono, is still most likely to make a GOP pick. But given the Republican’s unpredictability, many in the state GOP are already privately whispering that Christie will do what’s best for his own political future.

While some rumored Monday that a Booker appointment was a possibility, though a long-shot, one longtime GOP consultant in the state said, ““It would be surprising, but it wouldn’t’ be a jaw-dropper.”

Either way, the choice Christie makes, and when he weighs in regarding when an election should be, could have implications for his future political plans, with the moderate Republican already on tenuous ground with the more conservative wing of his own party after his sharp embrace of President Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

According to several GOP sources, the least-damaging path for Christie seems to be to appoint a temporary placeholder that pledges not to run in the special election, much like Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick did in choosing Democrat Mo Cowan to briefly fill now-Secretary of State John Kerry’s Senate seat until the June 25 special election. But one key difference – Patrick was filling a seat his party currently holds, while Christie has the chance to flip an open seat toward his party.

Immediate Republican names that have surfaced include 2012 Senate nominee Joe Kyrillos, a state senator who’s been a longtime friend and confidante of the governor. Another possibility is state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., son of former Gov. Tom Kean Sr., who was the 2006 nominee for Senate, and another close Christie ally.

According to GOP sources, Kean, who got 44 percent in the 2006 race against Democrat Bob Menendez, won plaudits for running a difficult race in a bad year for Republicans, and is seen as a better choice in GOP circles than Kyrillos, even though he, too, ran a respectable race against Menendez in another uphill presidential year.

The state’s six GOP congressmen also seem like unlikely picks, especially if they would have to give up relatively safe House seats to take an appointment, and could trigger competitive races for their congressional seats.

Other names, though longer shots who could be temporary picks, some Republicans are mentioning include state Sen. Kevin O’Toole, a Hispanic lawmaker who’s also close with Christie; former state GOP chairman Jay Webber, now a state legislator who’s well-liked among conservatives; or even wealthy biotech executive John Crowley, who’s flirted with a statewide run before.

One name several Republicans don’t believe is likely is Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who is running for re-election alongside Christie but is being groomed as his potential successor, especially if he runs for president in 2016.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 3:24 PM EDT

Continuing his administration’s efforts to address gun violence and mental health in the wake of last year’s Newtown school shootings, President Barack Obama on Monday pledged that his administration will help “bring mental illness out of the shadows.”

“There should be no shame in discussing or seeking help for treatable illnesses that affect too many people that we love,” he said in opening remarks at a White House conference on mental health awareness. “We’ve got to get rid of that embarrassment, we’ve got to get rid of that stigma. Too many Americans who struggle with illnesses are still suffering in silence rather than seeking help.”

Obama’s remarks opened the daylong conference intended to increase awareness of mental health issues and combat the associated stigma that may prevent the mentally ill from seeking treatment. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki led discussions during the event, and "Silver Linings Playbook" actor Bradley Cooper participated.

Vice President Joe Biden – who has shepherded the White House’s efforts to address the gun issue – also delivered closing remarks.  

Emphasizing that the “overwhelming majority” of people who suffer from mental illness are not violent to themselves or others, the president alluded to mental illness as a factor in acts of mass violence – although he did not specifically mention the December 2012 shooting that left 20 children dead in Newtown, Ct.

“In some cases when a condition goes untreated, it can lead to tragedy on a larger scale,” Obama said. “We can do something about stories like this.”

In addition to addressing violence, the White House’s efforts are also focused on improving treatment for returning veterans who suffer from mental illnesses like post-traumatic stress disorder. Obama announced Monday that the Department of Veterans Affairs will launch more than 150 community “summits” to promote awareness of resources available for veterans struggling with mental health issues.

Jim Watson / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Janelle Montano, a public mental health speaker for Active Minds, at a conference on mental health at the White House, June 3, 2013, building on the administration's efforts to combat gun violence and assist veterans.

“For many people who suffer from mental illness, recovery can be challenging,” he added. “What gives so many of our friends and loved ones strength is the knowledge that you’re not alone. You’re surrounded by people who care about you and will support you on the journey to get well. We’re here for you.”

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 10:42 AM EDT

New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg passed away on Monday after struggling with health issues in recent months.

NBC News confirmed that the 89-year-old Democratic senator – the oldest member of the chamber – passed away from viral pneumonia that had sidelined him from the Senate for much of this year.

President Barack Obama hailed the late senator as "a proud New Jerseyan who lived America’s promise as a citizen, and fought to keep that promise alive as a senator."

Lautenberg was first elected to the Senate in 1982, and served into that capacity through 2001, when he initially retired. State Democrats beckoned him back into public life, though, in 2002 following the withdrawal of their candidate during a competitive race.

"First elected to the Senate in 1982, he improved the lives of countless Americans with his commitment to our nation’s health and safety, from improving our public transportation to protecting citizens from gun violence to ensuring that members of our military and their families get the care they deserve," Obama said.

Though Lautenberg missed a number of votes over the past few months due to illness, he did return to Washington for several high-profile votes. He made the trip to the Capitol in April for the Senate’s vote on legislation to strengthen gun control laws, and on May 16, he participated in a committee vote to approve President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the EPA.

"Never was Sen. Lautenberg to be underestimated as an advocate for the causes he believed in and as an adversary in the political world," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "I think the best way to describe Frank Lautenberg and the way he would probably want to be described to all of you today is as a fighter. Sen. Lautenberg fought for the things he believed in and sometimes he just fought because he liked to."

"I am deeply saddened at the loss of my friend, Frank Lautenberg," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "History will show him to be one of the most productive Senators ever."

The longtime senator was the last remaining member of the Senate to have served in the military during World War II, following the retirement earlier this year of Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and the death of Sen. Daniel Iouye, D-Hawaii. The flags at the U.S. Capitol were ordered to half-staff on Monday in mourning of Lautenberg.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

NBC News has confirmed that Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the oldest member of the Senate, has died at the age of 89 of viral pneumonia June 3, 2013.

Lautenberg had announced his intention to retire in 2015, at the conclusion of his current term -- though not before publicly chastising Newark Mayor Cory Booker, D, for readying his own Senate campaign before Lautenberg made that announcement. The task will now fall to Christie to appoint an interim successor to Lautenberg.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:54 AM EDT