After supporters of the Senate immigration reform bill got a boost from a new report estimating that the bill would substantially decrease the federal budget deficit over the next two decades, conservative opponents of the legislation pushed back Wednesday, saying the legislation would fail to stop illegal immigration, decrease American wages and hurt the Republican Party.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in a report Tuesday night that the bill would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion between 2014 and 2023 and by an additional $700 billion from 2024 to 2033.

But opponents of the bill questioned the CBO’s credibility and pointed out other less favorable data in the agency’s findings. 

“CBO doesn’t exactly have the best track record,” said Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation analyst who authored a report on the legislation’s impact earlier this spring. “CBO is the institution that told us that Obamacare wouldn’t cost us any money, and it used the same kind of tricks it’s using today.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas concurred in an appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. “If there’s one thing Washington knows how to do, it’s to come up with bogus cost estimates,” he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, another leading GOP critic of the bill, seized on the CBO’s admission that the bill would result in depressed wages and slightly higher unemployment in the short term as the labor supply increased with an influx of new workers. (The report indicated that those effects would abate by about 2025.)

“It's going to raise unemployment and push down wages," Sessions said Tuesday. “The impact will be harshest for today's low-income Americans. Meanwhile, the 21 million Americans who can't find full-time work will have an even harder time getting a job and supporting their families."

And opponents pointed out that the CBO report also estimated that, under the Senate bill, “the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law.”

That’s not nearly enough for border security advocates who want assurances that illegal immigration will effectively end after passage of reform legislation.

A group of GOP senators are currently in talks to develop an amendment to the Gang of Eight bill that could appease Republicans on border security while retaining sufficient support from bill drafters and the Democratic majority in the upper chamber. But, with those negotiations ongoing, conservatives staunchly opposed to the immigration bill have continued making their case and directed constituents to lobby against the measure.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted down an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul that would have required Congress to certify that border security measures are being met before allowing undocumented immigrants to begin the legalization process.  The vote was 61-37. 

Cruz, during the Limbaugh interview, urged the conservative host’s listeners to contact their representatives in Congress about the Gang of Eight legislation, which he called “a disaster.”  

The Cuban-American senator from Texas also disputed the idea that Republicans must work towards comprehensive immigration reform to repair damage done to the party’s brand with the growing bloc of Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

“After 2012, all of the Washington political consultants and all of the mainstream media came to Republicans and said ‘You’ve got to do better with Hispanics, and the way to do better with Hispanics is to embrace amnesty,'” Cruz said. “And, look, a lot of Republicans in Washington are scared.

“I think that political argument is complete nonsense,” he added.

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:00 PM EDT

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said Wednesday that she supports legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the third GOP member of the Senate to endorse the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Days before the Supreme Court is set to issue decisions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Murkowski joined Republican Sens. Rob Portman, Ohio, and Mark Kirk, Ill., in supporting same-sex marriage.

"I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government," Murkowski wrote in an op-ed explaining her decision. "When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values.  I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values:  it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another."

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights group, hailed the decision.

“We hope other fair-minded conservatives like Senator Murkowski stand up and join her,” HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “Alaska may be nicknamed ‘the Last Frontier,’ but we’ve got to make sure that LGBT Alaskans don’t have to wait to find justice.”

Murkowski had previously said her views on same-sex marriage were “evolving,” using the language President Barack Obama had once used to describe his own views before endorsing marriage rights. She had been one of the few Republicans to support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

A veteran GOP senator, Murkowski has become somewhat unmoored from the rest of the Republican conference in the Senate following her re-election in 2010. After having lost the Republican nomination in Alaska to Tea Party favorite Joe Miller, Murkowski waged an unusual, independent write-in campaign, which she rode to re-election – a rare feat in politics. Since returning to the Senate, she has conferenced with the rest of the GOP.

Most other Republicans remain on record as opposing same-sex marriage, though activists who support same-sex marriage hope that the steady trickle of prominent Republicans who have endorsed the rights of gays and lesbians to marry may break the conservative logjam on the issue. An ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this month found that 33 percent of Republicans support allowing gays to marry, while 65 percent of Republicans oppose it.

At the same time, activists have also ratcheted up pressure on high-profile Democrats – including a number of centrist senators – to endorse same-sex marriage.

Obama’s repeat performance in Berlin… President talks Afghanistan, NSA surveillance, and Syria in press conference with Germany’s Merkel… House passes abortion-ban measure… CBO says “Gang of Eight” immigration bill will lower deficit by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years… Boehner: “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans”… And Markey, Gomez spar in final debate. 

Odd Andersen / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama gives a speech on a podium in front of Berlin's landmark the Brandenburg Gate near the U.S. embassy on June 19, 2013.

*** Obama’s repeat performance in Berlin: Repeat performances of a winning act are never easy; just ask any sports team or musical group. The explanation is pretty simple: It’s difficult to replicate a smashing success, because circumstances always change after the passage of time. And that was President Obama’s challenge as he spoke in Berlin, Germany almost five years after his memorable speech in the city during the ’08 presidential campaign. (The speech also comes almost 50 years after John F. Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” address.) Obama began his remarks saying, “Today, I’m proud to return as president of the United States.” Then he said: “For all the power of militaries, for all the power of governments, it is citizens who choose whether to be defined by a wall or whether to tear it down.” He emphasized curbing nuclear arms -- a subject that’s always been more popular in Europe than the United States, for obvious reasons. “So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe,” Obama said, adding: “We can ensure the security of America and our allies … by [further] reducing [our arsenal] by up to one third.” And he once again called for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. “We must move beyond the mindset of perpetual war.”

*** Then vs. now: Of course, so much of the attention of Obama’s speech is comparing it with the one five years ago. Back then, he was an inspirational presidential candidate; now he has a record with its ups and downs. Back then, he addressed hundreds of thousands of Germans; now the audience is smaller (due to German Chancellor Merkel trying not to overly politicize it since she’s up for re-election). And back then, German elites adored him; now they’re more skeptical (though a Pew poll shows a whopping 88% of Germans say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs). The hope for the Obama White House is that, hours from now, more are focused on what he said TODAY rather than what he said FIVE YEARS ago.

***Obama talks Afghanistan, NSA surveillance, and Syria: Before Obama’s speech, he held a bilateral news conference with German Chancellor Merkel, where the American president made his first remarks after the Taliban had announced peace talks but also after an upset Afghan government broke off negotiations with the U.S. regarding military cooperation. Obama said the friction/conflict isn’t surprising given that the Taliban and Afghan government have been fighting for a long time and there’s an enormous amount of mistrust. On NSA surveillance (especially on those abroad under the PRISM program), Obama said, “This applies very narrowly to leads we have obtained on issues of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction… This is not a situation where we are rifling thru the emails of German citizens or American citizens… Lives have been saved and the encroachment on privacy has been restricted.” (It’s important to note that while Merkel is sensitive to how this program has been received domestically, the Germans have their own related programs.) And on Syria, Obama wouldn’t comment on what kind of arms the U.S. has given to Syrian rebels, but he added: “What I can say is we have had a steady, consistent policy -- which is we want a Syria that is peaceful, not sectarian, legitimate, tolerant, and that is our overriding goal.” More: “We want to end the bloodshed… The best way to get there is through a political transition.”

*** House passes abortion-ban measure: By a 228-196 vote last night, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed a measure that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. (The bill would allow an exception if the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, or if it's the result of a case of reported rape or incest.) Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the vote was mostly along partisan lines, with just six Democrats voting in favor (Cuellar of Texas, Lipinski of Illinois, Matheson of Utah, McIntyre of North Carolina, Peterson of Minnesota, and Rahall of West Virginia. And six Republicans voted against the legislation: Broun of Georgia, Dent of Pennsylvania, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Hanna of New York, Runyan of New Jersey, and Woodall of Georgia.

*** CBO says Senate immigration will lower deficit by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years: Also yesterday, supporters of the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation celebrated the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the bill, as it said the legislation would reduce federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the next 10 years (2014-2023) and an additional $700 billion over the 10 years after that (2024-2033), NBC’s Carrie Dann reports. Said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform. This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill's opponents of one of their last remaining arguments.” Added Marco Rubio: "The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers.” And be careful what you ask for: “Conservatives had expected that an analysis of the second decade — when immigrants would begin to qualify for federal benefits — would bolster their argument that the costs of an immigration overhaul were unwieldy, but that turned out not to be the case in the economic analysis,” the New York Times says.  

*** Boehner: “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans”:  That was the good news for supporters of immigration reform; the bad news came from comments by House Speaker John Boehner, who suggested that he wouldn’t bring any legislation to the floor without the support from a majority of House Republicans. “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a press briefing yesterday, per NBC’s Luke Russert and Carrie Dann. He went on to say, “I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security, I think the internal enforcement mechanisms are weak and the triggers are almost laughable.” If you read Boehner’s comments carefully, he left himself SOME wiggle room (“I don’t see any way…”). But there’s another way to read his remarks: It’s very possible that he believes a majority of his GOP conference COULD vote for the legislation, especially if it gets sizable support in the Senate.

*** All about midterm politics? At his news conference yesterday, Boehner also argued that Democrats really don’t want to pass comprehensive immigration reform quickly because they’d rather have it as a midterm issue. "I'm increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” he said. That might be more believable if this were 2015 and we were talking about a general presidential election coming up, but not as much in a midterm. Why? One, Latino turnout in midterms is lower than in a presidential, where they can make and have made a significant impact. And two, redistricting has led to fewer swing seats and solidified many Republican districts. “I don't think it makes much sense, either,” said David Wasserman, who covers House races for the Cook Political Report. “There are only 24 House Republicans in districts where Latinos make up more than 25% of the population, and only two of them -- David Valadao (CA-21) and Gary Miller (CA-31) -- sit in districts that are remotely competitive. So Boehner's contention that Democrats aren't negotiating in good faith is more an attempt to explain why those in his party fearful of a primary are causing delay.”

*** Markey, Gomez spar in final debate: Finally, one week out before the special Senate election in Massachusetts, Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Gabriel Gomez clashed in their third and final debate last night. Per the Boston Globe, Gomez continued to hit Markey as a Washington insider. “Nothing’s going to change if Mr. Markey wins this election,” he said. “We’re going to have the same D.C. down there and the same dysfunction. The only thing we’re going to have is him moving from one building to the next.” And Markey tied Gomez to the GOP and its political priorities. The two candidates, the Globe adds, also sparred “over Gomez’s decision to campaign with John McCain, a five-term senator, despite Gomez’s support for term limits for senators. ‘Did you ask John McCain to leave the Senate?’ Markey said. ‘No, Mr. Gomez, you did not.’ But Gomez argued that he did, in fact, tell McCain he should be barred from running for another term.” Yet if you want to know how difficult it is a for a Republican to run for the Senate in the Northeast, just check out this comment that Gomez gave to ABC: “I'm ashamed that only four Republicans voted for the expanded background check.”

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

AP: “The Republican-led House passed a far-reaching antiabortion bill Tuesday that conservatives saw as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.”

NBC’s Carrie Dann: “The vote was 228-196, with six Democrats and all but six Republicans voting for the measure. But the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, has virtually no chance of becoming law, with the Democratic-led Senate certain to ignore it and the White House threatening in scathing language to veto it.”

Politico: “Opposing it, Democrats supporting abortion rights are stoking liberal anger over the ‘war on women’ and chiding the GOP for spending its time on a divisive social agenda instead of focusing on jobs. They said the bill is unconstitutional and distracting.”

Trent Franks was absent from the debate over his own bill. Roll Call: “The sidelining of bill sponsor Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was a clear signal of the extent to which Republican leadership found itself forced to undertake significant damage control after last week’s Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, when Franks kicked off a firestorm by saying ‘the instance of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.’”

This abortion comment was, um, interesting… “The [abortion] debate was marked by graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and medical claims. Representative Michael C. Burgess, a Texas Republican who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, appeared to suggest that male fetuses are capable of fondling themselves,” the New York Times says. “‘They have movements that are purposeful,’ Mr. Burgess said during a debate of the bill during the House Rules Committee meeting on Monday. ‘They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?’” 

Politico notes, as many others have written immediately after the 2010 elections: “Democrats fell far short of winning the House in 2012, an otherwise banner year for the party, and many are privately glum about taking back the chamber in 2014. But that grim immediate outlook raises a far more troubling longer-term prospect for Democrats: that the newly drawn congressional lines have tilted the electoral playing field so decisively in the GOP’s favor that the party could control the House through 2020. That this, in other words, could be the Democrats’ Lost Decade.”

Politico: “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says Speaker John Boehner should be ousted if he rams through an immigration bill without majority Republican support. ‘If Speaker Boehner moves forward and permits this to come to a vote even though the majority of the Republicans in the House—and that’s if they do—oppose whatever it is that’s coming to a vote, he should be removed as Speaker,’ Rohrabacher said on World Net Daily radio on Monday.”

Roll Call’s Dennis and Dumain go deeper: “Speaker John A. Boehner looked to cut off a budding revolt Tuesday when he told his fellow Republicans that he couldn’t see a way to bring a bill to the floor without majority GOP support — a move that alarmed Democrats and appeared to shrink the chances of a bill reaching the president’s desk. Boehner’s move was just one of many scenes from a day fraught with peril and promise for an immigration overhaul — from a vote to make illegal immigrants criminals in the House Judiciary Committee to a Congressional Budget Office score that found the Senate bill would cut the deficit by about $900 billion over the next 20 years.”

Meanwhile, the Political Moneyline blog notes while Boehner was being criticized, Eric Cantor’s PAC was handing out checks to members of $5,000 apiece.

NBC’s Dann reports that a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows the immigration bill would reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

“Partisan lines are hardening over the Senate’s immigration reform bill, downgrading hopes a 70-plus majority of senators will back it in an up-or-down vote next week,” The Hill writes, adding, “Yet hopes the bill could win 70 or 80 votes are fading along with the chances that a key amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) will be approved.”

Ron Brownstein: “Most Americans say illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in the country, but the public divides evenly on whether citizenship should be linked to stiff progress in securing the border, as many Senate Republicans are demanding, the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll has found. … On the most fundamental question of how to handle the estimated 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally, just 25 percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants ‘should not be allowed to stay in the country legally.’ But the remainder divided over what form legalization should take. The largest group, 45 percent, said those here illegally  ‘should be able to apply for US citizenship,’ the approach taken in the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill now on the Senate floor. The remaining 22 percent said they should be allowed to seek ‘permanent residency’ but not citizenship, as some House Republicans prefer.”

National Journal on House Republicans’ immigration strategy: “House Republicans are ready to play ball on immigration—aggressively. They are taking the strategy they attribute to President Obama—pushing for legislation and taking political credit, win or lose—and using it for themselves. They are asking for big-time enforcement, much of it highly offensive to Democrats. If the final negotiations don’t work out, they can always say they tried and Democrats rejected their overtures.”

AP: “The Republican-led House passed a far-reaching antiabortion bill Tuesday that conservatives saw as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.”

NBC’s Carrie Dann: “The vote was 228-196, with six Democrats and all but six Republicans voting for the measure. But the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, has virtually no chance of becoming law, with the Democratic-led Senate certain to ignore it and the White House threatening in scathing language to veto it.”

Politico: “Opposing it, Democrats supporting abortion rights are stoking liberal anger over the ‘war on women’ and chiding the GOP for spending its time on a divisive social agenda instead of focusing on jobs. They said the bill is unconstitutional and distracting.”

Trent Franks was absent from the debate over his own bill. Roll Call: “The sidelining of bill sponsor Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was a clear signal of the extent to which Republican leadership found itself forced to undertake significant damage control after last week’s Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, when Franks kicked off a firestorm by saying ‘the instance of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.’”

This abortion comment was, um, interesting… “The [abortion] debate was marked by graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and medical claims. Representative Michael C. Burgess, a Texas Republican who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, appeared to suggest that male fetuses are capable of fondling themselves,” the New York Times says. “‘They have movements that are purposeful,’ Mr. Burgess said during a debate of the bill during the House Rules Committee meeting on Monday. ‘They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?’” 

Politico notes, as many others have written immediately after the 2010 elections: “Democrats fell far short of winning the House in 2012, an otherwise banner year for the party, and many are privately glum about taking back the chamber in 2014. But that grim immediate outlook raises a far more troubling longer-term prospect for Democrats: that the newly drawn congressional lines have tilted the electoral playing field so decisively in the GOP’s favor that the party could control the House through 2020. That this, in other words, could be the Democrats’ Lost Decade.”

Politico: “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says Speaker John Boehner should be ousted if he rams through an immigration bill without majority Republican support. ‘If Speaker Boehner moves forward and permits this to come to a vote even though the majority of the Republicans in the House—and that’s if they do—oppose whatever it is that’s coming to a vote, he should be removed as Speaker,’ Rohrabacher said on World Net Daily radio on Monday.”

Roll Call’s Dennis and Dumain go deeper: “Speaker John A. Boehner looked to cut off a budding revolt Tuesday when he told his fellow Republicans that he couldn’t see a way to bring a bill to the floor without majority GOP support — a move that alarmed Democrats and appeared to shrink the chances of a bill reaching the president’s desk. Boehner’s move was just one of many scenes from a day fraught with peril and promise for an immigration overhaul — from a vote to make illegal immigrants criminals in the House Judiciary Committee to a Congressional Budget Office score that found the Senate bill would cut the deficit by about $900 billion over the next 20 years.”

Meanwhile, the Political Moneyline blog notes while Boehner was being criticized, Eric Cantor’s PAC was handing out checks to members of $5,000 apiece.

NBC’s Dann reports that a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows the immigration bill would reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

“Partisan lines are hardening over the Senate’s immigration reform bill, downgrading hopes a 70-plus majority of senators will back it in an up-or-down vote next week,” The Hill writes, adding, “Yet hopes the bill could win 70 or 80 votes are fading along with the chances that a key amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) will be approved.”

Ron Brownstein: “Most Americans say illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in the country, but the public divides evenly on whether citizenship should be linked to stiff progress in securing the border, as many Senate Republicans are demanding, the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll has found. … On the most fundamental question of how to handle the estimated 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally, just 25 percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants ‘should not be allowed to stay in the country legally.’ But the remainder divided over what form legalization should take. The largest group, 45 percent, said those here illegally  ‘should be able to apply for US citizenship,’ the approach taken in the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill now on the Senate floor. The remaining 22 percent said they should be allowed to seek ‘permanent residency’ but not citizenship, as some House Republicans prefer.”

National Journal on House Republicans’ immigration strategy: “House Republicans are ready to play ball on immigration—aggressively. They are taking the strategy they attribute to President Obama—pushing for legislation and taking political credit, win or lose—and using it for themselves. They are asking for big-time enforcement, much of it highly offensive to Democrats. If the final negotiations don’t work out, they can always say they tried and Democrats rejected their overtures.”

The Republican-controlled House passed legislation Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, offering social conservatives a symbolic victory even as the bill is all but certain not to become law.

The vote was 228-196, with six Democrats and all but six Republicans voting for the measure.

But the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, has virtually no chance of becoming law, with the Democratic-led Senate certain to ignore it and the White House threatening in scathing language to veto it.

The bill, called the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks, unless the life of the mother is at risk. The legislation cites studies which indicate that a fetus feels pain starting at this gestational threshold; supporters of the bill say this medical research dictates that these fetuses should therefore not be aborted.

The vote came after Republicans – facing criticism over an alleged gaffe by bill sponsor Franks - altered their strategy to argue to bill, sidelining the Arizona lawmaker as the leader of the debate in favor of highlighting Republican women who support the ban.

House leaders also added language to the legislation last week after Franks stated that “the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” Democrats compared that assertion to one made by then-Senate candidate Todd Akin, who suggested last year that women who are victims of “legitimate rape” often experience a physical, biological reaction to the trauma, preventing pregnancy.

Under the changed bill, pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest -- and are reported to authorities -- are excluded from the ban.

The vote also comes in the wake of a murder conviction for Kermit Gosnell, an abortion provider found guilty of murder for performing illegal late-term abortions.

Responding to criticism Tuesday that the House should be focused on economic issues instead of the largely symbolic abortion vote, Republican House Speaker John Boehner pointed to the Gosnell trial as evidence that taking up the abortion ban is warranted.

“After this Kermit Gosnell trial and some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill and so do I,” he said.

And Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., argued on the House floor that the bill would send the "clearest possible message to the American people that we do not support more Gosnell-like abortions."

While the vote offered a chance for members from socially conservative districts to flex their political muscles, some moderate Republicans grumbled about the leadership’s decision to hold a vote on a controversial measure with no chance of going beyond the House.

“I think a lot of people are shaking their heads and not understanding why we’re doing this,” said one GOP official, who added that votes on hot-button social issues don’t help the party maintain much-needed Republican seats in moderate districts.

Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania bluntly told The New York Times that the vote is “a stupid idea.”

“The economy is on everybody’s minds. We’re seeing stagnant job numbers. Confidence in the institution, in government, is eroding,” said Dent, a moderate whose southeastern Pennsylvania district only narrowly voted for Romney last year after voting for President Barack Obama in 2008. “And now we’re going to have a debate on rape and abortion.”

Last year, the House considered a similar piece of legislation that achieved the same ban, but applied only to the District of Columbia and did not include the exception for rape or incest. That bill achieved a simple majority (220-154), but ultimately failed because it needed a two-thirds majority for passage.

Last week, the White House made clear that it would veto the legislation, calling it an “assault” on women’s rights and a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s rulings.

“Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose,” the administration said in a statement. “This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution.”

NBC’s Jessica Taylor and Frank Thorp contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:15 PM EDT

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that he does not “see any way” of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that does not have backing from a majority of the House’s GOP members, calling the border security provisions in the measure currently making its way through the Senate “weak” and “laughable.” 

Comprehensive immigration reform must – in some fashion – run through the United States House, and Boehner’s statement further complicates what is already a delicate process of compromise as proponents of the bill navigate political landmines on both sides of the Capitol dome. And the willingness of House Republicans to sign on to any reform efforts remains a large question mark. 

“I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a press briefing with reporters Tuesday.

“I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security, I think the internal enforcement mechanisms are weak and the triggers are almost laughable,” he said of the bill drafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Jeff Flake. “So if they're serious about getting an immigration bill finished, they should reach out to their GOP colleagues to broaden support.” 

Proponents of the “Gang of Eight” bill currently being debated in the Senate have hoped that – if it garners a strong bipartisan vote for passage in the Senate – Boehner would be under enormous political pressure to bring it to the House floor for a vote. 

Republicans in the Senate, including Rubio, have pushed for additional border security provisions that could make their bill more palatable to the Republican-led House. But Democratic leaders argue that those attempting to make the bill’s “path to citizenship” contingent on the completion of stringent border provisions are hoping to derail the legalization process for undocumented immigrants. 

So far, the major GOP border security amendments voted upon in the Senate so far have failed to garner enough support to be adopted; a proposal by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.  to build a 700-mile border fence before undocumented immigrants can obtain green cards failed 39-54 Tuesday afternoon. 

Speaking to reporters before that vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he believes popular support for the immigration measure will prevail. 

"No matter what he [Boehner] has said, there's going to be significant national pressure on the House to do something on immigration," he said. 

But on Tuesday, Boehner accused Democrats of seeking to sabotage the legislation. 

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) meets with members of the press to answer questions at the U.S. Capitol June 12, 2013 in Washington, DC.

“I'm increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” he said. 

Last week, Boehner told reporters that he would not bring a bill to the floor that violates the “principles” of the Republican Party. His harsh description of the legislation Tuesday made clear that he believes the Senate bill as written would be such a violation.

House committees are currently working through individual pieces of immigration legislation that are less sweeping than the Senate bill. The lower chamber will convene a special conference to discuss immigration reform next month.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:06 AM EDT

Obama at the G-8: It could have been worse… Germany visit: 2013 vs. 2008… Obama on Syria, NSA surveillance, and Bernanke… McCaskill backs “Ready for Hillary” Super PAC… House to vote on abortion ban… Biden to talk gun control… Not-so Great Scott… And revenge is a dish best served … by running for office. 

*** It could have been worse: As President Obama today wraps up his G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland before heading to Germany later this afternoon, it’s safe to say that this hasn’t been a very successful overseas trip for President Obama. At least so far. He was hoping to get a big show of early support on a free-trade agreement with Europe (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), but he got some pushback (especially from France). And regarding Syria, there wasn’t much of an agreement on anything, especially from Russia. Of course, it could have been worse -- the U.S. will still host the first round of talks on the trade partnership next month in DC, and Obama’s meeting with Putin was at least cordial (yet still awkward). At least Putin didn’t make any cannibal references while sitting next to the president. That said, the White House is hoping to turn things around with a successful speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany tomorrow. But even that seems like an uphill climb. Der Spiegel doesn’t exactly roll out the welcome mat for Obama like they did in 2008.

Ian Langsdon / AP

President Barack Obama, left, and French President Francois Hollande attend a round table meeting of G-8 member countries at the G-8 Summit at the Lough Erne golf resort in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, on Tuesday, June 18, 2013.

*** 2013 vs. 2008: NBC’s Andy Eckhart notes:  “Germany meets the superstar" was the headline on the cover of Der Spiegel weekly before his visit during the 2008 campaign. Some 200,000 Germans cheered him on. In this most recent issue of Der Spiegel, Eckhart notes the cover features Obama in Kennedy’s shadow with the tagline, „The Lost Friend“ and then it has an „angst-ridden report about fraying ties. "Kennedy's visit to Berlin was an almost ecstatic celebration of a protective alliance," it wrote. But it said nearly 70 years after World War II and two decades after the end of European communism, "the trip of (JFK's) no-less-charismatic successor will likely be a prosaic family gathering." Commentators note that Germans, like other ardent Obama supporters, are frustrated by impasses on slowing climate change and closing Guantanamo Bay prison.“ Needless to say, expectations are a LOT lower for Obama’s reception in Germany than they were five years ago. 

*** Obama on Syria: So what did we learn from Obama’s Charlie Rose interview from last night? Well, he outlined his Syria policy (or as some argue, his non-policy) a bit more. “We know what it's like to rush into a war in the Middle East without having thought it through. And there are elements within the Middle East who see this entirely through the prism of a Shia-Sunni conflict and want the United States to simply take the side of the Sunnis,” he said. “And that I do not think serves American interests.” He went on to say, “And we have a legitimate need to be engaged and to be involved. But for us to do it in a careful calibrated way sometimes is unsatisfying, because what people really typically want is a clean solution, a silver bullet, ‘Here's what we're going to do,’ and we just move forward.”

*** Obama on NSA surveillance: In his interview with Charlie Rose, the president also commented on the controversies surrounding the NSA surveillance programs. “The way I view it, my job is both to protect the American people and to protect the American way of life which includes our privacy,” he said. “And so every program that we engage in, what I've said is ‘Let's examine and make sure that we're making the right tradeoffs.’” He went on to say, “If you're a U.S. person, then NSA is not listening to your phone calls and it's not targeting your emails unless it's getting an individualized court order.” Obama’s comments came as a new Pew poll shows that Americans are split on the NSA surveillance story, with 49% saying that Edward Snowden’s release of the classified information serves the public interest, versus 44% who say it harms the public interest. (Strikingly, younger people strongly say that the NSA leak serves the public interest, which might not be that surprisingly given that the younger generation has a greater expectation that things are more open and transparent.) Also today, the House Intelligence Committee holds an open hearing at 10:00 am ET with NSA Director Keith Alexander. 

*** Obama closer than ever to replacing Bernanke? Perhaps the biggest news that Obama made in the Charlie Rose interview was that Ben Bernanke isn’t going to serve another term as Fed chairman. Why? Because Obama spoke of his service in the past tense. ROSE: “Some people would like to see you announce that you are reappointing Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Fed.” OBAMA: “Well, I think Ben Bernanke's done an outstanding job. Ben Bernanke's a little bit like Bob Mueller, the head of the FBI where he's already stayed a lot longer than he wanted or he was supposed to.” ROSE: “But if he wanted to be reappointed, you would reappoint him?” OBAMA: “He has been an outstanding partner along with the White House, in helping us recover much stronger than, for example, our European partners, from what could have been an economic crisis of epic proportions.”  

*** McCaskill backs “Ready for Hillary” group: In 2016 news today, the group “Ready for Hillary” announced the support of Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom it says is the first member of Congress to get on board of the Super PAC that’s supporting Hillary’s candidacy (though that doesn’t have official ties with the former Secretary of State). It’s also notable because McCaskill was an early Obama supporter in ’08. This McCaskill news comes after former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has been assisting Ready for Hillary, too. One thing that was clear to us yesterday, there seems to be a concerted effort to recruit prominent Democratic women early to Hillary’s side. That said, let’s everybody take a deep breath and realize, the only “news” a top Democratic official can make now about 2016 is announcing their intention NOT to support Clinton.  At this point, announcing support for her is not exactly NEWS. 

*** House to vote on abortion ban: Remember when, right after the 2012 election, Republican establishment types wanted to move beyond abortion and the culture war? Well, months later House Republicans today hold a vote on a measure that would prohibit abortion after 20-22 weeks of pregnancy. The New York Times: “Aware of the risks inherent in abortion politics, Republican leaders have moved to insulate themselves from Democrats’ criticism that they are opening a new front in the “war on women.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, will manage the debate on the bill when it reaches the House floor, a role that would customarily go to the sponsor, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona. And in a last-minute revision, House leaders slipped in a provision that would allow for a limited exception in cases of rape or incest, but only if the woman had reported the crime.” Those limited exceptions come after Franks drew criticism for saying that the incidents of pregnancy from rape were “very low.” Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the vote takes place around 6:00 pm ET. 

*** Biden to talk gun control: Meanwhile, at 1:00 pm ET, Vice President Biden delivers remarks on reducing gun violence. But after the administration’s defeat on the Senate background-check vote, Biden’s focus will be on the executive orders that the administration has pursued on guns. “Senior administration officials said the vice president will deliver a ‘progress report’ touting completion of a slew of executive actions — including writing emergency management plans for schools and churches and training police to respond to active shooters,” the Washington Post reports. “Sure, these steps might make communities safer and better prepared to respond to gun violence. But, gun-control advocates said, they are baby steps that do relatively little to prevent the next mass shooting.” More: “Biden plans to announce that the administration has completed or made significant progress in 21 of 23 executive actions first rolled out on Jan. 16, according to senior administration officials.” 

*** (Not so) Great Scott: Folks, the fact that this new Quinnipiac poll is being touted as good news for incumbent Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) shows just how endangered he is come 2014. Yes, his approval rating has increased from 36% to 43% from 36%. And, yes, he’s now trailing Charlie Crist by 10 points (47%-37%) instead of 16 (50%-34%) in a hypothetical gubernatorial match up. But those are rough, rough numbers for a politician facing re-election next year. You never want to see your approval rating below 45%, and you never want your ballot number to be in the 30s… 

*** Revenge is a dish best served … by running for office: After it became pretty clear that Senate Republicans wouldn’t allow Elizabeth Warren to officially head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Warren decided to run for the U.S. Senate, and she beat incumbent Republican Scott Brown. (It raises the question if Brown might still be in the Senate if Republicans had been willing to accept her appointment.) And now Donald Berwick -- who headed Medicare and Medicaid for the Obama administration as a recess appointee but who never even received a Senate confirmation hearing -- is following the Elizabeth Warren route. Yesterday, he announced he was running for Massachusetts’ open gubernatorial seat in 2014 as a Democrat. In addition, it’s possible that Richard Cordray, Obama’s recess appointment at the CFPB, could run for Ohio governor. As one plugged in Hill Democrat emails us, “Remember, there’s historic precedent for blocked nominees seeking revenge through future elected office.  If things had gone differently in the 80s, Jeff Sessions would currently be toiling as an obscure federal judge in Alabama, not leading the charge against the immigration bill.”   

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

Lindsey Graham’s losing patience with Marco Rubio. "How do we put together a bill and then the guy who put it together says that he may not vote for it?" Graham told The Huffington Post. "I just don't get what we're doing here."

“The Republican-led House will take its deepest dive yet into immigration reform this week, rushing to play catchup with the Senate on the chief domestic policy battle this year,” Politico writes. “The House bipartisan group, which has labored for four years without releasing anything, is finally on the verge of producing a bill. The House Judiciary Committee is holding its first immigration markup on Tuesday on an enforcement-centered bill that Democrats abhor. And the all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus will huddle with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday, and immigration will undoubtedly be a hot topic.”

National Journal: “John Boehner wants immigration reform to pass. To get it done, the House speaker will have to capitalize on the widening gap among conservatives, and he’s preparing the groundwork to do it. The rare split inside the conservative wing of Boehner’s Republican conference offers him an uncommon opportunity to bring a bill to the floor without facing an insurrection among his members. It also means convincing enough conservatives that passing some immigration measure won’t be preamble to the Senate using compromise negotiations to jam a more liberal version down the House’s throat.”

“The abortion wars return to Congress in a big way with House legislation to ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks,” AP writes. “The legislation expected to pass the Republican-controlled House as early as Tuesday has no chance of becoming law in the near future: The Democratic-led Senate will ignore it and the White House has issued a veto threat. But the measure gives social conservatives a rare chance to promote their anti-abortion agenda and lays the groundwork for what could be a future challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that confirmed a woman’s right to late-term abortions.”

Roll Call: “The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and intended to be ‘scored’ by the National Right to Life Committee, is based on the belief held by some medical experts that the fetus can begin to experience pain after the 20-week threshold. As originally written, the bill would hold physicians accountable to the law for performing an abortion after that threshold and would provide exemptions only when the pregnancy poses a life-threatening risk to the mother.”

DGA memo: “Today, House Republicans are poised to vote for an extreme ban on abortions after 22 weeks. But, with a Democratic president and Senate, House Republicans’ efforts will be in vain. Unfortunately for American women, the debate in the states—particularly those with Republican governors—isn’t just about political posturing. Whether it’s in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, New Jersey, or one of several other GOP-helmed states, a woman’s right to make critical decisions about her own health is being taken away at a disturbing rate.”

The DSCC is taking aim on student loans: As July 1st quickly approaches, Paul Broun, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey continue to put special interests ahead of Georgia’s students and middle class families by siding with House Republicans to charge more for college loans. Champions of obstruction and gridlock in Washington, Broun, Gingrey and Kingston opposed freezing current student loan rates by refusing to sign a petition that would bring a bill directly to the floor that would prevent student loan rates from doubling, while at the same time backing the House Republican plan that would immediately raise interest rates for some students and make college more expensive for students across the country.”

The Hill: “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is roiling the Senate immigration debate by offering several amendments that could give him an edge in a future Republican presidential primary. Paul, who could square off against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the bill’s primary authors, in the 2016 GOP presidential primary, is taking aim at three of the most controversial areas of the bill, according to Senate aides familiar with the measures.” 

And here was Paul on Edward Snowden… Politico: “Sen. Rand Paul described NSA leaker Edward Snowden a ‘civil disobedient’ and noted that others protesting the government like Martin Luther King Jr. had only faced short jail terms.”

Paul said: “On deciding when you decide to become a civil disobedient - we’ve had famous ones in our career, but some of them only had to serve, like [Henry David] Thoreau only had to serve one day in jail, Martin Luther King served 30 days in jail. [Snowden] may be looking at life in prison. … People are saying, ‘Oh, he ought to just come home.’ But I don’t know if that’s a good or a bad idea if he’s facing life in prison.” 

Chaser: A majority believe Snowden should be prosecuted, per Pew: “54% of the public – including identical majorities of Republicans and Democrats (59% each) – say the government should pursue a criminal case against the person responsible for leaking the classified information about the program. Young people, by 60% to 34%, think that the NSA leak serves the public interest. Americans 30 and older are divided (46% serves vs. 47% harms). And while those younger than 30 are divided over whether Snowden should be prosecuted, majorities in older age groups favor the government pursuing a criminal case against him.”

“Speaker John A. Boehner faces one of his first big leadership tests of the year as he brings a farm bill to the floor this week amid opposition from a host of powerful conservative advocacy groups that have frequently bedeviled his speakership,” Roll Call writes. “It is uncommon for a speaker to pledge to vote for a bill, and the Ohio Republican’s promise last week to do so on the farm bill is even rarer, given that he has not voted for a farm bill since 1996.” 

The Hill: “A group of House Democrats has proposed legislation that would require companies around the country to give workers two hours of paid time off in order to vote in federal elections.”

It’s pot lobby day… “Legalization activists young and old will fan out across the Capitol on June 17 as part of Federal Marijuana Lobby Day, a pro-pot push poised to include food, booze and pep talks from sympathetic policymakers,” Roll Call writes. “Silver Tour founder Robert Platshorn, a convicted drug trafficker cum reform advocate — ‘I caught the first kingpin charge for marijuana,’ he shared, having served three decades of a whopping 64-year sentence — is bringing busloads of senior citizens who are interested in medical marijuana along for the congressional tour.”

Roll Call: “The Capitol community will pause for a few moments this week to honor Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist and former D.C. resident whose statued likeness will be placed in the Capitol on Wednesday.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro soon won’t be able to make his joke anymore that the way to tell between him and his twin brother Julian is that Julian’s married. Joaquin got engaged.

Ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL) and his wife will be sentenced July 3. Lynn Sweet: “The couple pleaded guilty in February to looting their campaign funds of $750,000 over seven years. Sandi Jackson also faced income tax evasion charges.”

She's not a presidential candidate yet but Hillary Clinton is already starting to pile up the endorsements.  

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill Tuesday added her support to a growing roster of Democratic activists pushing the former secretary of state to make another bid for the White House in 2016.  The nudge gives Clinton a marquee, swing-state backer and could be an early glimpse at a major source of support for any potential campaign -- Democratic women in the U.S. Senate.   

McCaskill announced her support for Clinton on the website of the group "Ready for Hillary," a super PAC which has looked to build grassroots fervor for a potential Clinton candidacy in 2016.  The group is not tied directly to Clinton but has been aggressive in gathering support for a potential candidacy.  

Larry Downing / Reuters file

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., speaks about pending legislation regarding sexual assaults in the military at a Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 4, 2013.

"Hillary Clinton had to give up her political operation while she was making us proud, representing us around the world as an incredible Secretary of State, and that’s why Ready for Hillary is so critical,” McCaskill said in a statement. “It’s important that we start early, building a grassroots army from the ground up, and effectively using the tools of the Internet – all things that President Obama did so successfully – so that if Hillary does decide to run, we’ll be ready to help her win.” 

Speculation has grown in recent weeks about Clinton's political future.  Just weeks after stepping down as Obama's Secretary of State, she started to re-enter public life. While she has been deliberately coy about her intentions in 2016, Clinton launched a Twitter account last week teasing her "to be determined" future plans.  Her profile reads: "Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD..."  

And in a major new policy push, she outlined new initiatives involving access to education and advancing women's issues at last week's "Clinton Global Initiative," another nod at her unique position as the most high-profile woman in American politics. 

While she has endured criticism from Republicans over last fall's terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, Clinton received a rare send-off from the president when she left office that included a joint interview that some observers saw as a passing-of-the-torch moment.     

McCaskill is one of 16 Democratic women serving in the Senate, many of them representing key swing states like Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Minnesota.  Regarded as a relative moderate, McCaskill won re-election to her second term in 2012. Though Missouri has trended slightly toward Republicans in recent statewide and presidential elections, it is still considered a "swing state" in relative terms — a state whose 10 electoral votes are important to winning an election. 

McCaskill's early support for Clinton is even more noteworthy for the fact that she was an early supporter of Barack Obama's during the 2008 Democratic primary versus Clinton. The Missouri senator's support for Clinton reflects the manner in which a number of Obama supporters have now turned their sentiments to Clinton, who served as Obama's top diplomat during his first term.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:29 AM EDT

Cold  War tensions are back as G-8 summit begins… A test of Obama’s international leadership… Cheney vs. Gore on NSA surveillance… New Yorker: Everything you wanted to know about the Gang of Eight... Boehner to abide by Hastert Rule on immigration?... What does Rowhani’s win mean for the U.S.?... Poll: Markey leads Gomez by double digits… And Manchin gears up … for 2018!!!

*** Cold War tensions are back: As the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland begins today, we probably aren’t the only ones having flashbacks to the early 1980s. With Russia alone among the G-8 nations in backing the governing Assad regime, the old divides have resurfaced in dramatic ways. On Sunday, Russian President Putin publicly lectured British Prime Minister David Cameron on Syria in a joint appearance, saying, “As regards to the supplies of weapons to the Assad government, … I believe you will not deny that the blood is on the hands of both parties. ... And there’s always a question, who is to be blamed for that?” A new Snowden-leak story about how the U.S. and British intelligence agencies eavesdropped on world leaders -- including then-Russian President Medvedev -- at a London conference in 2009 is sure to add to the tensions. And if that wasn’t enough, there’s a new allegation from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft who claims Putin stole one of his Super Bowl rings. All of this is the backdrop when President Obama meets with Putin at 6:30 pm ET.

*** A test of Obama’s international leadership: As we wrote on Friday, this G-8 summit has become a test of Obama’s second-term international leadership. Can he stare down Putin? Can he keep the Western allies on the same page when it comes to arming the Syrian opposition? Can he articulate exactly what the U.S. strategy is beyond just hoping Assad will step aside and allow a political peace process to begin? Bill Clinton’s criticism of the president’s Syrian policy wasn’t nearly as impactful domestically as it was internationally. All this comes at a time when the president appears, well, a tad smaller today than he the last time he was in Europe. Over the past month, little has gone well for the administration as it’s been nicked by several different cuts -- Syria, the NSA leaks and surveillance debate, and the IRS story. And now there’s a new CNN poll showing that Obama’s approval rating has declined to 45%. As Team Obama is fond of saying, everyone gets their turn in the barrel. And right now, the Obama folks are definitely in the barrel. The potential good for them: That situation can always change. Indeed, it was just a year ago when the Obama campaign suffered a tough spell in May and June (poor jobs reports, “the private sector is doing fine”), and that situation changed in July, August, and September. Perhaps it’s a June thing. What they have to hope it’s not is some sort of second-term pall setting over them because that can be hard to shake. Appearance or illusion of weakness only creates actual political weakness. Bottom line: Obama needs to some meaningful progress, and it must gall him that his fate, at least internationally when it comes to Syria, is in the hands of Putin.

*** Cheney vs. Gore on NSA surveillance: Here’s a fun exercise -- looking at the NSA surveillance debate through the lens of two former vice presidents: Dick Cheney and Al Gore. For starters, Cheney “told ‘Fox News Sunday’ the National Security Agency-led programs have to remain confidential to keep the information from enemies and that he and other U.S. intelligence officials were concerned about a nuclear attack. ‘It was 19 guys with box cutters and airplane tickets,’ but the next time it could have been a ‘nuclear attack,’ the 72-year-old Cheney said. He said former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposing the gathering of information on phone calls and emails has done ‘enormous damage’ to the United States' anti-terror programs and called Snowden a ‘traitor.’” And here’s Gore, via National Journal: “In a long interview with The Guardian published on Friday, Gore said that the NSA surveillance is ‘not really the American way.’ And that's not the least of it: ‘This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment—and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear...It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is.’” It’s time for someone to step up and moderate a debate on surveillance between these two -- we are happy to moderate!

/

President Barack Obama gestures during a speech at the Belfast Waterfront on Monday, June 17, 2013, in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

*** Everything you wanted to know about the Gang of Eight: As the Senate begins another week debating the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform legislation, don’t miss Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece. It has everything you needed to know about the politics inside the Gang of Eight -- the McCain-Schumer relationship and how it developed, the tension between McCain and Rubio, improved relations between Schumer and Dick Durbin, and even McCain taking some of the blame for the bad relationship with the White House. (Another sign the Old McCain is back?) Bottom line takeaway from this piece: This is Chuck Schumer's show, he put this team together, and he seems to be keeping them together.  

*** Boehner to abide by the Hastert Rule on immigration? But that’s the Senate. When it comes to the House, the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker reports that Speaker John Boehner won’t bring any immigration-reform legislation to the House floor if it doesn’t have a majority of Republicans backing it, according to sources familiar with Boehner’s plans. From the piece: “One GOP strategist noted that Boehner is navigating a different set of dynamics than Reid in the Senate. In particular, House Republicans are likely to suffer a greater voter backlash in the 2014 elections is they back the wrong immigration reform bill than they would if they simply did nothing on the issue. ‘There is no national crisis with an artificial deadline the president can trump up and trot out on the nightly news,’ the GOP strategist said. ‘Boehner is under no pressure to put the Senate bill on the floor.’” Make no mistake: Boehner is facing two different pressures: 1) from Republicans who are convinced that the GOP must fix its problems with Latino voters; and 2) from conservatives in his caucus who are opposed to immigration reform -- and, frankly, anything President Obama is supporting. The question is: Which pressure will win out?

*** What does Rowhani’s win mean for the U.S.? Turning to international politics, there was a PRETTY BIG development in Iran over the weekend: In a surprise, the most moderate of the actual candidates Hassan Rowhani won that country’s presidential contest. The New York Times: “But while the election of the new president, Hassan Rowhani, a former nuclear negotiator who is considered a moderate compared with the other candidates, was greeted by some administration officials as the best of all likely outcomes, they said it did not change the fact that only the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would make the final decision about any concessions to the West. Even so, they said they wanted to test Mr. Rowhani quickly, noting that although he argued for a moderate tone in dealing with the United States and its allies when he was a negotiator, he also boasted in 2006 that Iran had used a previous suspension of nuclear enrichment to make.” 

*** Poll: Markey leads Gomez by double digits: Before next week’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, a Boston Globe poll released on Sunday shows Ed Markey (D) leading Gabriel Gomez (R) by double digits among likely voters, 54%-43%. One of the reasons why Gomez is trailing is that he isn’t running up the score among independents, which a Republican candidate needs to do in order to win in deep-blue Massachusetts. “Gomez is the candidate poll respondents find more likable and he holds the lead among unenrolled voters — the critical bloc of independents whose support he’ll need to top a Democrat in Massachusetts. But that margin is only 9 percentage points. Analysts believe that for a Republican to win in Massachusetts, he must win the unenrolled vote by a 2-to-1 margin.”

*** Manchin gears up … for 2018! Are we the only ones who think Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and his political team are overreacting a bit here? After all, Manchin isn’t up for re-election until 2018!!!! “Sen. Joe Manchin, co-author of a plan to expand background checks on gun sales, is launching a TV ad to defend himself from attacks by the powerful National Rifle Association,” Politico says. “Manchin will begin running the TV ad later this week, although details on how much the West Virginia Democrat will spend on the ad buy and its content were still being finalized on Sunday. Manchin will pay for the ad out of his reelection campaign.” If you were wondering if Manchin was going to run for re-election, well you have your answer -- 5 ½ years early!

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