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

Scattershot: White House message has been all over the place… So has the GOP’s message… On the unrest in Turkey… Eric Holder on the hot seat, again… IRS remains in the news… Immigration bill to reach Senate floor on June 10… GOP report: Republicans have challenge in winning over younger voters… And the Republican Party’s built-in midterm advantage for 2014.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in the Oval Office of the White House on May 31, 2013 in Washington, DC.

*** Scattershot: Beginning the sixth month of his second term in office, President Obama today hosts -- along with Vice President Biden -- a daylong White House conference on mental health. This comes after Friday’s event on student loans, last Tuesday’s trip to New Jersey to talk about rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy, and the even earlier national-security speech at the National Defense University. And these different events raise this question: What is the White House’s overall message? Because right now it’s all over the place. The above events are all worthy, don’t get us wrong. But they seem disconnected from whatever larger narrative the president offered up in January during his inaugural and State of the Union. Team Obama seems like it’s doing plenty of one-day events, but it’s lacking a larger, well, vision thing. To be sure, the IRS/Benghazi/leak controversies have put the White House on the defensive over the last three weeks. But what is the larger message? That the economy is improving and the budget deficit is getting smaller? (The president hasn’t really leaned into those arguments, almost as if fearing he does, something bad will happen in the economy.) That immigration reform is necessary? (The White House is letting Congress work its will on the legislation, staying quiet so Republicans can deal with their internal politics without interference on this issue.) That Republicans and Democrats need to come together on the budget? (When is the last time we’ve heard the president speak on that topic?

*** Why not go bold? The White House tells us that June will be about student loans and immigration (through the Senate), plus foreign affairs (meeting with China’s president in California, heading to the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland, going to Africa later this month). But here’s a second question we have for the White House: As it finds itself playing defense on the IRS controversy, why isn’t it also playing offense -- to seem like is trying to fix dysfunctional Washington? Why nothing on civil-servant reform? Why nothing on tax reform? Why not go big and bold on something or multiple things? The White House seems to be acting as if it’s powerless to really change things in Washington, which is one way to act if you are in the seventh or eighth year of a presidency. Of course, the White House would dispute the idea it’s given up on going big. But as the summer kicks in, it will only put more pressure on the White House to get its mojo back in the fall.

*** GOP’s message is all over the place, too: If the White House’s message has been all over the place the last few weeks, so has the Republican Party’s. On the Sunday shows yesterday, Republicans hit the Obama administration on the IRS and leak-investigation controversies, but there was barely a word about Benghazi -- which happened to be the subject that kicked off the trio of controversies. Regarding the IRS, Republicans are divided on their line of attack. Was the Obama White House responsible for the IRS targeting of conservative-sounding groups? Or was it asleep at the wheel? But it can’t be both of those things. And regarding the Justice Department’s seizure of reporters’ phone records to investigate national-security leaks, Republicans (and now even some Democrats) are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to step down. Yet don’t forget that Republicans were the ones who complained about national-security leaks and demanded investigations into them. All of these various and sundry GOP complaints seem to validate the argument coming from many Democrats -- that Republicans are simply throwing whatever they can against the wall to see what sticks. And House Oversight and Government Reform Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) calling White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a “paid liar” only furthers that impression.

*** This is what you get during second terms: But given these scattershot messages, here’s an important reminder: This is normally what you get during second terms. Your authors have covered two previous second terms -- Clinton’s and Bush’s. Both presidents tried to push a big domestic priority (education/child care for Clinton, Social Security privatization for Bush), and both failed. During those second terms, the political opposition threw the kitchen sink at the White House (Lewinsky/impeachment for Clinton, Iraq/Katrina for Bush). And these former presidents found their second terms reduced to locking in their first-term accomplishments, building on their legacies, and getting their judicial nominations cleared through Congress.

*** Unrest in Turkey: Here is the world’s biggest story today: “Anger and resentment boiled over onto the street over the past three days [in Istanbul, Turkey], as the police barraged demonstrators with tear gas and streams from water cannons — and as the protesters attacked bulldozers and construction trailers lined up next to the last park in the city’s center,” the New York Times says. “In full public view, a long struggle over urban spaces is erupting as a broader fight over Turkish identity, where difficult issues of religion, social class and politics intersect. And while most here acknowledge that every Turkish ruling class has sought to put its stamp on Istanbul, there is a growing sense that none has done so as insistently as the current government, led by [Prime Minister] Erdogan’s Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party, despite growing resistance.”

*** Eric Holder on the hot seat, again: As we alluded to above, Attorney General Eric Holder is receiving political heat, which is nothing new. But this time, some of it is coming from Democrats. The Sunday Times: “Over the course of four and a half years, no other member of President Obama’s cabinet has been at the center of so many polarizing episodes or the target of so much criticism. While the White House publicly backed Mr. Holder as he tried to smooth over the latest uproar amid new speculation about his future, some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish he would step down, viewing him as politically maladroit. But the latest attacks may stiffen the administration’s resistance in the near term to a change for fear of emboldening critics.” Holder’s tenure has always been divisive inside the West Wing and that fact is now breaking out into the open with more blind quotes about Holder circulating this week. At the end of the first term, Holder had told the White House he wanted to stay on for just one more year (or so), which the president agreed to even as some of his political aides hoped differently. Replacing an AG is never easy, and of all the cabinet agencies, Justice is the hardest to “force” someone out (just ask Bill Clinton who failed to push Janet Reno out for YEARS).

*** IRS remains in the news: Meanwhile, the IRS’s troubles aren’t going away. “The Internal Revenue Service spent an estimated $49 million on at least 220 conferences for employees over a three-year span beginning in fiscal 2010, according to a forthcoming report that will prompt fresh scrutiny of the already embattled agency,” the Washington Post reported on Sunday. “The findings come as the Obama administration is overhauling the agency after officials said dozens of groups were inappropriately scrutinized as they sought tax-exempt status. The admission forced the resignation of the agency’s acting commissioner and has sparked criminal and congressional investigations.” More from the paper: “[A]cting IRS commissioner Daniel Werfel acknowledged the report in a statement late Friday, but he did not share any of the findings. He called the spending ‘an unfortunate vestige from a prior era’ and said the agency has significantly curtailed conference spending in recent years.” In addition, per NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, Issa’s committee has released a partial transcript of interviews between GOP congressional investigators and Cincinnati IRS employers. According to the GOP-run committee, one Cincy employee pointed to Washington, DC as being responsible for the targeting effort. (But Washington doesn’t necessarily mean White House.) And at 3:00 pm ET, the House Appropriations Committee holds another hearing on the IRS.

*** Immigration bill to reach Senate floor on June 10: On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said none of the controversies is affecting the immigration debate. “Well, first we're going to put immigration on the floor starting on June 10. I predict it will pass the Senate by July 4. We're hoping to get 70 votes, up to 70 votes, which means a lot of Republicans. And we're willing to entertain amendments that don't damage the core principles of the bill, but improve the bill, just as we did in committee.” Schumer went on to say, “These so-called scandals have not diverted us one iota. You have, on the Gang of Eight, three of the people who have been most critical of the president on some of these other issues. But I think the eight of us realize how important this is, more important probably than any of these scandals, to the future of America, for job growth, for the middle class.”

*** GOP report: Republicans have challenge winning over younger votes: Politico reports on a post-election study by the College Republican National Committee -- being released today -- which is “sharply critical of the GOP on several fronts [when it comes to wooing young voters]. The study slams some Republicans’ almost singular focus on downsizing Big Government and cutting taxes; candidates’ use of offensive, polarizing rhetoric; and the party’s belly-flop efforts at messaging and outreach, even as the report presents a way forward and, at times, strikes an optimistic tone.”

*** Don’t miss this story: If you have time today, be sure to read this fascinating -- and long -- look by Buzzfeed at the conflict inside one of the Republican Party’s top consulting firms.

*** The GOP’s built-in midterm advantage: Lastly, the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman makes an important point about the upcoming 2014 midterms: The GOP is favored to make gains -- but it has little to do with the political environment or the so-called “six-year itch” that hits the party controlling the White House. Wasserman writes, “Midterm elections have always drawn older voters, and usually drawn white voters, to the polls in disproportionate numbers. Older voters are less transient, have grown deeper roots in their local communities, and pay much more attention to non-presidential elections than their younger counterparts. In the 1980s, that didn't hold partisan consequences. Today, that amounts to a built-in midterm turnout advantage for Republicans.”

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

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:09 AM EDT

Amid a furor over a Justice Department subpoena of Associated Press phone records and an investigation of leaks to Fox News correspondent James Rosen, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the third-ranking senator in the Democratic leadership, voiced confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday.

“I haven’t seen anything that would prevent him from continuing to do his job,” Schumer told NBC’s David Gregory. “The president has confidence in Holder and I believe he’s going to stay,” the New York Democrat said. 

In the Rosen case, Schumer said, “I don’t think there’s perjury” in what Holder told the House Judiciary Committee last month when the attorney general said that he doubted it would “wise policy” to prosecute news media organizations for publishing classified information in the national security leaks case.

Holder also said in that testimony that "the focus should be on those people who break their oaths and put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather this information."

Schumer pointed out that there has been no attempted prosecution of Rosen and any other journalist.

But some Republicans have asked whether Holder misled the House committee, because Rosen had been named a co-conspirator in an investigation of State Department leaks.

Commenting on Meet the Press on Holder and the far-reaching Justice Department probe of Associated Press reporters in a national security leaks case, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers said, “I think that dragnet they threw out over those AP reporters was more than an over-reach—and it really is not very good investigative work.” A good investigation would have narrowed the list of targeted reporters, the Michigan Republican said.

But Rogers, a former FBI agent, also stressed that “these leaks are serious and for those folks (in the executive branch) who are leaking information that may lead to the death of sources, or of people who are cooperating with the United States, or men and women  who serving in combat –there should be consequences for that.”

Rogers said “this pattern of deception administration-wide is starting to become concerning,” referring to the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative groups, the administration’s explanation of the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi last year, and the AP probe, Rogers said the administration risked losing Americans’ trust in their government.

Commenting on Holder, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R- Va., said on "Fox News Sunday'' that, "We're investigating the conflict in his remarks" to the committee at its May 15 hearing. "Those remarks were made under oath, but we also think it’s very important that the attorney general be afforded the opportunity to respond, so we will wait to pass judgment on that until we receive his response."

To some degree, the controversies over leaks and over the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative groups have diverted news media attention from President Obama’s legislative agenda.

Gregory asked Schumer – a leader in the bipartisan Gang of Eight effort in the Senate to pass an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws -- whether the leaks and the IRS controversy have sapped support for immigration reform.

Schumer said, “We’re going to put immigration on the (Senate) floor starting on June 10. I predict it will pass the Senate by July 4. We are hoping to get 70 votes, up to 70 votes, which means a lot of Republicans. And we’re willing to entertain amendments that don’t damage the core principles of the bill, but improve the bill – just as we did in (the Judiciary) committee.”

He added, “These so-called scandals have not diverted us one iota” from the immigration overhaul. When the bill goes to the House, Schumer said, “If we can come out of the Senate with close to a majority of the Republican senators and almost every Democrat, that may change the equation in the House and the thinking in the House among mainstream Republicans, and they may want to go for our bill.”

He also said in the 2014 campaign the GOP was at risk of over-emphasizing the IRS and other controversies and likened next year’s election to 1998 when Republicans counted on the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal to make gains and ended up losing seats in the House.

This story was originally published on Sun Jun 2, 2013 10:34 AM EDT

Hillary’s ’16 numbers come back down to earth, even though she leads both Jeb Bush and Rand Paul… Yet Biden trails against both Republicans… This week’s 2016 round-up… Obama talks student loans at 10:20 am ET… America’s political realignment is now complete… Pryor’s up with his first TV ad… Demographics and affirmative action… Romney’s back in the news… And Rogers, Schumer to appear on “Meet."

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes remarks after being honored with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington, May 1, 2013.

*** Hillary’s 2016 numbers come back down to Earth: Yes, it’s early to discuss 2016. Yes, everything right now is speculation. And, yes, so much can happen in the next two or three years. But it’s Friday, and we have a new 2016 poll to chew on. According to a new Quinnipiac survey, Hillary Clinton still looks strong against potential GOP competitors, but her numbers -- not surprisingly -- have come back down to earth. She leads both Jeb Bush (48%-40%) and Rand Paul (49%-41%) by eight points. Yet back in a March Quinnipiac survey, she was ahead of Marco Rubio by 16 points (50%-34%) and Paul Ryan by 12 (50%-38%), though her edge against the popular Chris Christie was smaller (45%-37%). There are two explanations for this. First, Republicans have started coming back home. While 11% of Republicans backed her in the March match up against Rubio, just 8% of GOPers support her in this new survey against Jeb Bush (though that’s a very small change). Second, she’s now essentially splitting the indie vote when she was leading back in March. Nevertheless, here is why Clinton remains so formidable: She’s running ahead of both Bush and Paul among women by 20-plus points, and she trails among men in the single digits. If she runs and if that gender gaps persists, she’d be VERY DIFFICULT to beat. The Quinnipiac poll also shows that Clinton’s fav/unfav has dropped to 52%-40%, although last week’s Washington Post/ABC poll had her approval rating at 62%.

*** Biden trails both Bush and Ryan: Meanwhile, the same May Quinnipiac poll finds Vice President Biden trailing both Bush (38%-44%) and Paul (39%-43%). Yet back in March, the vice president was ahead of Rubio (45%-38%) and Ryan (45%-42%), though he trailed Christie (40%-43%). Perhaps the best way to view Biden is as a generic Democratic candidate (i.e., someone who ISN’T Hillary Clinton). And at least according to this Quinnipiac poll, Democrats were in a stronger position in March than they are now.

*** This week’s 2016 round-up: Hillary Clinton marched in a Memorial Day Parade with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo…  New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was playing arcade games with President Obama again…. Ted Cruz went to New York, where he helped the state GOP raise about $750,000. He said of the Republican Party’s problems: “I am going to suggest that the last election can be explained in two words: 47 percent. … "I think Republicans are, and should be, the party of the 47%."… Jeb Bush isn’t taking his mother’s advice that the U.S. has had “enough Bushes.” He said in Michigan: "What can I tell you? All I can say is we all have mothers, right? She is totally liberated, and God bless her." As for running for president, he said he’d start thinking about it in about a year. … Rand Paul does not agree with aiding Syrian rebels. … Marco Rubio says repealing ObamaCare is the way to fix the IRS. And immigration advocates are worried that Rubio’s comments noting that the bill needs to change could weaken it… Ann Romney said she’s “very, very partial to Paul Ryan” for 2016… And Martin O’Malley spoke at CAP. He didn’t mention 2016, but he did tout Maryland’s progressive policies as mainstream.

*** Obama talks student loans: At 10:20 am ET at the White House, President Obama delivers remarks on student-loan legislation. Per the White House, he “will call on Congress to help keep college affordable for middle-class families and students by preventing student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1.” A little background on this, per USA Today: The student loan bill House Republicans recently passed would fluctuate with the markets, something they say was proposed by Obama in the State of the Union. But Obama wants loans fixed from when someone takes out a loan for the life of it, like a fixed mortgage. Republicans want to have the loan rate re-evaluated every year based on the market rate. Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says it’s running ads in college papers (print and online) accusing Republicans of voting for legislation that raises interest rates.

*** America’s political realignment is now complete: To understand how much American politics has changed since the 1960s -- heck, since the 1990s -- here’s something to consider: After the 2014 midterms, it’s possible that, for the first time, all of New England’s governors could be Democrats. And it’s equally possible that, for the first time, all of the states of the former Confederacy could have Republican governors. (Hat tip to Harry Enten who first pointed this scenario out to us after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee switched to the Democratic Party.) Of course, a Republican could win in Massachusetts’ open gubernatorial race next year, or Gov. Paul LePage (R) could win re-election in Maine. And Terry McAuliffe (D) could win this year in Virginia, Democrats could hold on in Arkansas, or a Charlie Crist (D) could win Florida’s governor’s mansion. But outside of those potential exceptions, it’s inescapable that a full party realignment -- now on the governor side -- has taken place after the Civil Rights Act, Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and Barack Obama’s election and re-election. Once dominated by Republicans, New England has now become a Democratic stronghold. And once dominated by Democrats, the South is almost completely controlled by Republicans.

*** Pryor up with first TV ad -- “No one from New York or Washington tells me what to do”: The realignment also could play out in next year’s Senate contests. Per NBC’s Kasie Hunt, endangered Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas has started airing TV ads defending himself against attacks from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun-control group. It's his first ad of the 2014 cycle, and begins airing today (18 months before Election Day!!!) "The mayor of New York City is running ads against me because I opposed President Obama's gun-control legislation. Nothing in the Obama plan would have prevented tragedies like Newtown, Aurora, Tucson or even Jonesboro," Pryor says in an ad straight to the camera. "I'm Mark Pryor, I approved this message because no one from New York or Washington tells me what to do. I listen to Arkansas.”

*** Demographics and affirmative action: With the Supreme Court set to rule on an affirmative-action case later this month, National Journal’s Ron Brownstein points out that the country’s changing demographics have altered the debate over affirmative action. “When the Supreme Court decided Bakke [in 1978], whites still made up 80 percent of America's population, including almost three-fourths of those under 18. But minorities now constitute more than 36 percent of the total population and are on track to become a majority of the youth population before 2020.” More: “Federal figures show that nonwhites comprised 47 percent of the 2011 class entering higher education, up from one-third in 1996. The problem is that those overall numbers mask the emergence of what Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl of Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce have called a ‘de facto dual system’ of higher education in which minorities and low-income kids are funneling mostly into the least selective (and rewarding) schools.”

*** Romney’s back in the news: In advance of the $5,000 per-couple retreat he’s hosting in Utah next week, Mitt Romney gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, in which he talked about the public/political role he wants to play, criticized President Obama, and expressed regrets about the ’12 campaign. Romney “is considering writing a book and a series of opinion pieces, and has plans to campaign for 2014 candidates. But he is wary of overdoing it. ‘I'm not going to be bothering the airwaves with a constant series of speeches.’” More: “‘The extraordinary disappointment of the president's second term is where the opportunity was greatest, he has proposed the least,’ he said. ‘He continues to campaign as if there is another election, and there isn't.’” And Romney said “that the GOP needs ‘to translate our message in a way that minorities understand,’ and that he wished his campaign had poured more money into ads targeting Hispanic voters.”

*** Rogers, Schumer to appear on “Meet”: On “Meet the Press” this Sunday, NBC’s David Gregory interviews Rep. Mike Rogers and Sen. Chuck Schumer.

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

If you ask around Washington D.C., the Republican Party could have a no-brainer opportunity to claw its way back toward a triumphant and diverse majority -- or it could be on the verge of legislating itself out of existence.

Since the 2012 election, when Latino voters selected Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by nearly a 3-1 margin, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform have pointed to the passage of the legislation as a political imperative for the survival of the GOP.

Opponents of the legislation, on the other hand, have questioned whether the embrace of a bill that contains a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would have any long-term political benefit for Republicans. 

That’s a sentiment encapsulated by Kansas GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who told Reuters this month that “There is no evidence to support this idea that Republicans will pick up a lot of votes if we give amnesty to 11 million folks.” 

So how would the passage of an immigration bill really change the way the country votes -- especially as Hispanics swell to a bigger share of the electorate?

Republicans who are skeptical of the reform effort point to data showing that Hispanics lean towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, while those on the other side of the issue argue that Hispanics share important social and fiscal values with the GOP.

And some in the party are simply eager to move on from a national debate fraught with the risk that one tone-deaf comment -- like Rep. Don Young’s reference to “wetbacks” earlier this year -- can erase months of progress in widening the party’s appeal.  

Both sides agree it’s generally true that, right now, Latinos are primarily a Democratic constituency, demonstrated in no small part by the fact that the Democratic candidate has won the Latino vote in every presidential election since at least 1972.

(Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Latino vote in the 2012 election. President George W. Bush won as high a share as 44 percent in 2004, according to some exit polls.)

An April 2013 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center showed three in 10 Latinos surveyed described themselves as “liberal,” compared to 21 percent of the general population.

And 75 percent of Hispanics surveyed said they prefer “a bigger government providing more services” to a smaller government providing fewer.

Steven Camarota, the director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies -- a group that supports limitations on legal immigration and has opposed the Senate bill’s provisions -- says that’s bad news for Republicans.

“Continuing ongoing levels of legal immigration likely will continue to shift the national electorate towards the Democratic Party and toward greater sympathy for government intervention in the economy,” he said.

Other Republicans optimistic about growing the GOP’s appeal among Hispanics see plenty of bright spots in the data.

The overwhelming preference for a larger government diminishes the longer Hispanics have been in the country, for example. While 81 percent of new Latino immigrants said they prefer a bigger government, the share goes down to 58 percent for those who are third-generation immigrants or more.

Latinos are also the fastest-growing group of small business owners in the country. 

And on some measures, including frequency of church attendance and opinions on abortion rights, Hispanics tend to be more culturally conservative than the public-at-large.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP file photo

Immigration activists gather on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 20, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee began working on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions.

“The Hispanic community is open to candidates who speak to them, open to ideas that are pro-business, pro-entrepreneurial, about seeking the American Dream,” says Jennifer Sevilla Korn, the new Deputy Political Director and National Field Director for Hispanic Initiatives at the Republican National Committee

Korn’s new role at the RNC is to engage the Hispanic community nationwide and help implement the party’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” which included recommendations for building better connections with minorities, women and young voters.

“There’s a huge window of opportunity to engage with Hispanics and talk about what we’re for, especially when you’re talking about small-business owners and Hispanic evangelicals,” she said. “There’s absolutely room there.”

Dr. Matt Barreto, a co-founder of polling group Latino Decisions, says that Republican rhetoric about illegal immigration, not conflict with an overarching political ideology, is mostly to blame for the party’s dismal performance with Latinos.

“There is certainly truth to the notion that there are some issues on which Latinos are more conservative and could be open to hearing Republican viewpoints,” Barreto said. “But when the Republican Party is associated with very negative rhetoric and positioning on immigration it makes people not want to listen.”

So, would those voters consider a Republican candidate if the GOP played ball on the passage of immigration reform?

A poll by Latino Decisions and America’s Voice in March of this year asked Hispanic voters that question.

Asked if they would be “more or less likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the future if Republicans take a leadership role in passing comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship,” 44 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support a Republican.

And a majority of Hispanic voters (63 percent) also said they would back a Republican candidate who supported a “pathway to citizenship” over a Democratic candidate who didn’t.

Potential GOP fears also increase at the threat of an influx of new, previously undocumented Hispanic voters who eventually earn the right to vote after becoming U.S. citizens – a process that would take most applicants more than 13 years.  

But it’s unclear what percentage of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country will choose to work their way toward citizenship rather than remaining legal permanent residents – who don’t have voting rights.

Skeptics charge that those granted citizenship will be so dependent on government programs that they will never support a Republican Party largely dedicated to scaling back the size of those programs.  

(Undocumented immigrants aren’t technically eligible for federal means-tested benefits like Medicaid and food stamps, and under the current version of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, previously undocumented immigrants with probationary legal status wouldn’t be eligible to receive those benefits either.)

Data from the 2010 American Community Survey does indicate that foreign-born individuals in the U.S. – meaning naturalized citizens as well as legal and undocumented residents – are more likely than natural-born Americans to lack a high school diploma or live below the poverty line, both indicators of dependency upon federal benefits.

But while immigrants are more likely to be low-income and thus eligible for benefits, some studies – like from the libertarian Cato Institute -- dispute that immigrants actually access those benefits at a higher rate than their counterparts in the native-born population.

No matter how many reams of data are available to each side, questions about the political impact of immigration reform won’t stop before the legislation meets its eventual success or failure after a full-throated debate on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress.

“This is a perfect opportunity for the Republican Party to reverse this very negative image that they have, to try to be associated with positive outreach to this new community and ‘say we are part of the solution,’” says Barreto.  

Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies believes just the opposite.

“It seems very likely that politically this bill is almost certainly going to hurt them, not just because it creates more Democratic voters but because it alienates the people who are likely to vote for them, including the less educated whites who have not been showing up to the polls,” says Camarota. “Without those people it’s hard to see how Republicans win another presidential election.”

Related stories:

• Groups look for next step in delicate immigration reform dance
• Conservative talkers, grassroots groups push anti-immigration reform effort

This story was originally published on Thu May 30, 2013 5:55 PM EDT