Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) will resign from Congress later this summer to take a position with the University of Alabama system, according to two Republican sources, setting up a likely competitive primary to replace him in the safe GOP seat.

Bonner’s retirement was first reported by the Mobile Press-Register.

A former House Ethics committee chairman, Bonner was first elected to Congress from the Mobile district in 2002. Bonner had worked his way up to chief of staff for his predecessor, Rep. Sonny Callahan, and was easily elected to replace him when he retired.

Bonner will step down Aug. 15 for a newly created job as vice chancellor of government relations and economic development at the University of Alabama system.

"I trust you know that serving as your congressman this past decade has truly been one of the highest honors of my life," Bonner said in a statement to constituents. 

The first district is solidly Republican, and voted 62 percent for Mitt Romney in 2012 and just 37 percent for President Obama. Bonner didn’t even face a Democratic challenger last year, and this isn’t a race the national party would look to play in.

Republican Gov. Robert Bentley has a wide purview to set the special election to replace Bonner. According to state election law, “all special elections shall be held on such day as the Governor may direct.”

A crowded GOP primary and subsequent runoff is expected. Potential candidates, according to Republican sources, could include former state Sen. Bradley Byrne, who lost the 2010 gubernatorial primary to Bentley; businessman Dean Young, who got 25% against Bonner in last year’s primary; and state Sens. Trip Pittman, Bill Hightower and Rusty Glover. 

Bonner said he "was not looking for another job" and that the opportunity "was both unexpected and certainly unsolicited."

"I also firmly believe there are many ways you can serve your state and nation without having your name on a ballot," Bonner continued. "That said, while I had every intention of completing this term, sometimes opportunities come along that are so rare – and so special – that it forces you to alter even your best-made plans."

In 2011, the head of government relations at Alabama made $217,016. As a congressman, Bonner makes $174,000.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Thursday that he may postpone a confrontation with Republicans over stalled nominations until after the Senate considers the bipartisan immigration bill that the Judiciary Committee OK’d Tuesday.

“I am not going to do anything to interfere with the immigration bill,” he said.

At issue was the so-called “nuclear option,” a possible move by Reid and the Democrats to unilaterally curb filibusters by a simple majority vote, instead of by 67 votes as required by Senate rules.

Reid charged at a press conference Thursday that Republican foot-dragging had delayed or blocked confirmation of several key Obama nominees, with Republican senators submitting more than 1,100 written questions to Gina McCarthy, Obama’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

McCarthy, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, consumer financial watchdog Richard Cordray,  and five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board are awaiting confirmation.

“Presidents need to have the team they want when they want them – and this is not working” Reid said told reporters. “It is time for this gridlock to end – that is my message.” He added, “There are no threats – we simply want the Senate to work the way that it should.” 

He added later, “We’re not threatening anybody with anything.”

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y. argued that “the public would be happy to hear that the Senate is changing the way it is doing business. So the other side (the Republicans) must be careful – if they think they can win a debate over whether the Senate should change its rules, they might very well be mistaken.”

In a big victory for Obama, the Senate unanimously voted Thursday to confirm Sri Srinivasan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Senate Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R- Ky. indicated Wednesday that Republicans supported Srinivasan, a lawyer who has served in the Solicitor General’s office in both the Bush and Obama administrations, calling him "a nominee we all agree on.... We like him."

Discussing Srinivasan, Schumer smiled as he said to reporters, “We may be seeing him coming before the Senate again soon,” – a reference to speculation that Obama might nominate Srinivasan to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs. 

But looming in the weeks ahead is a potentially incendiary standoff over what many Democrats are urging: a change in Senate rules to end filibusters of nominees.

In 2005, Senate Republicans threatened to use the “nuclear option” after Democrats blocked votes on nominees to the federal courts by President George W. Bush. The roles were reversed in 2005 with Democrats supporting filibusters of nominee and Republicans accusing them of obstructionism. Eventually the two sides settled their dispute and allowed several Bush nominees to be confirmed to the federal bench.

Reid reminisced Wednesday about the agreement that Democrats had struck with Republicans on confirming those nominees. He said, “We agreed to put some people on the bench that we have regretted since then -- Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh” – all of whom are judges now serving on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

Obama to scale back his administration’s drone policy… Also expected in his 2:00 pm ET national security speech: better securing diplomatic facilities and stating his desire to close Gitmo… About that Holder letter… WaPo on the White House trying to shield Obama from IRS investigation… Cruz: “I don’t trust the Republicans”… Scott Walker heads to the Hawkeye State… And Happy (upcoming) Memorial Day weekend.

Pool / Getty Images

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at a concert honoring singer-songwriter Carole King with the 2013 Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song at the White House on May 22, 2013.

*** Obama to scale back drone policy: In his first major national security speech of his second term, President Obama today is expected to both defend -- but also announce changes to -- his administration’s use of drones to kill suspected terrorists and foreign enemies. “A new classified policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama will sharply curtail the instances when unmanned aircraft can be used to attack in places that are not overt war zones, countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,” the New York Times reports. “The rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists” -- i.e., force can be used against targets who are 1) an imminent threat against Americans, and 2) cannot be feasibly captured. The Times also says that the Obama administration will shift control of drone strikes from the CIA to the U.S. military. “The significance is the Pentagon will now control the drone program, which increases transparency both for Congress and the American people,” NBC terrorism analyst Roger Cressey said on “TODAY” this morning.

*** What’s also expected in the speech: A White House official, per NBC’s Shawna Thomas, says that the president’s speech also will discuss better securing U.S. diplomatic facilities (after the 2012 Benghazi attack), balancing security while protecting civil liberties at home (see the leak investigations), and stating his desire to close the Guantanamo Bay prison (an action which Congress opposes). Don’t be surprised if Obama says something along the lines of, “We will never send another detainee to Gitmo” as a way to express his willingness to close the facility. And don’t be surprised if he addresses -- head on -- the Justice Department’s seizure of reporters’ phone records in its prosecution of national security leaks. Obama delivers his remarks at 2:00 pm ET at the National Defense University in DC.

*** About that Holder letter: Obama’s remarks come a day after Attorney General Eric Holder released a letter acknowledging -- for the first time by the administration -- that four American citizens were killed in U.S. drone strikes. NBC’s Pete Williams says the letter discloses what had been widely reported and known: that three citizens were killed in counter-terrorism operations, including Anwar al Awlaki. The letter also gives the legal justification for those drone strikes. And finally, Williams adds, it discloses the death of an additional U.S. citizen, Jude Kenan Mohammed, who was indicted by a federal grand jury in North Carolina for taking part in a plot to stage a terror attack against US military targets. Speaking of drones, the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll found that 64% of Americans favored using them to target suspected members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, while 12% opposed and another 22% didn’t have an opinion. And in a separate question, 42% said the program should be continued, and 28% said it should be changed or modified.

*** The Shield: Turning from national security to the domestic/political controversies hitting the Obama administration, the Washington Post notes what we did yesterday about the IRS story -- that the White House’s top goal was to ensure that Obama had nothing to do with it. “This account of how the White House tried to deal with the IRS inquiry … shows how carefully Obama’s top aides were trying to shield him from any second-term scandal that might swamp his agenda or, worse, jeopardize his presidency.” The Post story also reveals that the White House brought in many of the old hands to manage the P.R. relating to the inspector general’s report. “Late last week, [White House Chief of Staff Denis] McDonough summoned Plouffe and a cadre of former Obama and Clinton advisers — including Stephanie Cutter, Robert Gibbs, Anita Dunn, Paul Begala and Mike McCurry — to the White House for two separate public relations strategy sessions. White House aides said they urged getting out information about the IRS situation as quickly as possible, and provided advice on refocusing attention on Obama’s jobs agenda.”

*** Cruz: “I don’t trust the Republicans”: Here’s something you don’t see every day: A U.S. senator announcing, on the Senate floor, that he doesn’t trust his own party. Of course, in his first few months in office, Ted Cruz isn’t your average senator. “The senior senator from Arizona urged this body to trust the Republicans,” Cruz said, per Politico referring to Sen. John McCain in the debate over whether to go to conference in the budget negotiations. “Let me be clear, I don’t trust the Republicans. I don’t trust the Democrats and I think a whole lot of Americans likewise don’t trust the Republicans or the Democrats because it is leadership in both parties that has got us into this mess.”

*** Scott Walker heads to the Hawkeye State: Meanwhile, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker today travels to Iowa, where he addresses the Polk County, IA GOP dinner that begins at 7:00 pm ET. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Walker could very well be the most significant 2016er on the GOP side that no one is talking about right now. There is A LOT of room for a presidential candidate who hails from outside of Washington.

*** State shopping isn’t the best policy for success: Don’t miss the piece on the “Daily Rundown” site about how politicians who run for office in one state and then another usually don’t have that much success.

*** Happy Memorial Day: Lastly, to get an early start on the upcoming Memorial Day weekend, your morning First Read note won’t be publishing on Friday. We’ll return on Tuesday. Happy Memorial Day!!!

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

Politico: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is waging an under-the-radar campaign to get his fellow Democrats to back a summertime fight to overhaul the filibuster for executive branch nominees.

Reid is carrying a list of names to target and has met with about two dozen Democrats on the issue thus far, focusing on ‘Old Bull’ senators and skeptics of rules changes, according to senators and aides familiar with the talks.”

More than 100 conservative economists have signed on to a letter urging Congressional leaders to pass comprehensive immigration reform, citing the overhaul's projected impact on economic growth and deficit reduction, per NBC’s Carrie Dann and Ali Weinberg. "Immigration reform’s positive impact on population growth, labor force growth, housing, and other markets will lead to more rapid economic growth," writes the group in a letter spearheaded by former Congressional Budget Office director and  American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin. 

“Seven million college students are on track to see their federal loan rates double this year unless Congress acts ahead of a July 1 deadline when subsidized Stafford loan rates will increase from 3.4% to 6.8%,” USA Today writes. “The U.S. House will vote Thursday on a Republican plan to head off the increase inspired by an unlikely source: President Obama. … In his 2014 budget, the president called for tying college loan rates determined by the federal government to market-based interest rates, which is the foundation of a GOP proposal. But that is where the similarities stop, and the partisan divides begin to emerge.”

Amb. Thomas Pickering, who authored the Accountability Review Board investigation into the aftermath of Benghazi, has agreed to a transcribed pre-hearing interview with the House Oversight Committee. Chairman Darrell Issa had wanted a private deposition. Pickering wanted a public hearing.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) thinks HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is like Ollie North, who helped provide arms from Iran to Nicaragua.

With one of President Barack Obama’s key nominees on the verge of being confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to edge away Wednesday from an idea that some Democrats are calling for: enacting a change in Senate rules to stop filibusters which delay votes on Obama appointees.

During a debate on the Senate floor with Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, Reid said, "I'm not saying we're going to change the rules" regarding the filibuster, but argued that the Senate must move faster to confirm Obama nominees.

He accused Republicans of “slow-walking” nominees and bogging them down by submitting hundreds and, in one case, a thousand written questions to the nominee before the confirmation vote could occur.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid speaks after a weekly Senate Democratic caucus meeting May 21, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

McConnell accused Reid of using the threat of a unilateral change in in Senate rules – the so-called “nuclear option” – to create “the majority’s own culture of intimidation right here in the Senate.”

The roles were reversed back in 2005 when the Republican majority, including McConnell, threatened to use the “nuclear option” to stop Democratic filibusters, supported by Reid at the time, of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

McConnell noted Wednesday that Republicans had agreed to an up-or-down vote on Obama’s nomination of Sri Srinivasan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with that vote to occur the Tuesday after the Senate returns from its one-week Memorial Day recess.

“Instead the majority leader chose to jam the minority,” McConnell complained, accusing the Democrats of “manufacturing a crisis to justify their heavy-handed behavior.”

Reid moved on Tuesday to limit debate on Srinivasan and have his confirmation vote Thursday.

McConnell called Srinivasan "a nominee we all agree on.... we like him" and argued that speeding up his nearly certain confirmation was Reid gratuitously using his power.

Srinivasan is crucial because so far in the four and a half years of his presidency, Obama has gotten no one confirmed to that court, which handles most legal challenges to regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies and serves as a major stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

In March, Republicans blocked a confirmation vote on another Obama nominee to that court, Caitlin Halligan.

 “You have a majority on that court that is wreaking havoc with the country,” Reid said, 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 since he had made them when there was no Senate recess.

Reid also reminisced Wednesday about the agreement that he and other Democrats had struck with Republicans in 2005 on confirming Bush’s judicial nominees, an agreement that was made under the threat of the Republicans using the nuclear option.

He said, “We agreed to put some people on the bench that we have regretted since then -- Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh” – all of whom are judges now serving on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

Awaiting Senate action after the Memorial Day recess are other nominees such as Thomas Perez to be labor secretary, Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, and five Obama nominees to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

George Kohl, senior director for the Communications Workers of America, a labor union, said he didn’t interpret Reid’s comment Wednesday as him ruling out any future use of the nuclear option.

For the CWA, the NLRB nominees are crucial. “If they don’t get that (floor) vote in July, the Labor Board will cease to function on Aug. 27 when the chairman’s term expires. We think that’s a crisis for America.”

If McConnell doesn’t allow a vote on the NLRB nominees, “we think the rules (on ending debate) need to be changed” so the NLRB can protect workers’ right, Kohl said.

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 3:36 PM EDT

Lawmakers expressed both anger and bewilderment that IRS leaders had not told Congress sooner about indications that the tax agency had improperly singled out conservatives and Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

A highly anticipated hearing by the top investigative committee in the Republican-controlled House delivered on the drama that was expected. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of the division accused of wrongdoing, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against testifying, and defiantly asserted her innocence.

"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws," she said. "I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided any false information to this or any other committee."

But her refusal to testify left the hearing on an uncertain note. Republicans only recessed the meeting – versus formally adjourning it – and threatened to re-call Lerner, whom they asserted had waived her Fifth Amendment privileges by making her brief statement.

"I am looking into the possibility of recalling her and insist she answer questions in light of a waiver,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the committee.

But much of lawmakers' ire was trained on the IRS leadership for failing to disclose any indication of IRS wrongdoing to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, whose inquiry into the matter prompted an inspector general inquiry into targeting of conservative groups. Both Democrats and Republicans voiced outrage that Douglas Shulman, the commissioner of the IRS during much of the abuses, did not tell lawmakers that an internal IRS investigation had suggested improper action by the IRS to single out conservative groups.

"At that point, I didn’t have anything concrete," Shulman responded. "I didn’t have a full set of facts to come back to Congress or the committee with."

His answered angered Democrats as much as Republicans.

"If you didn’t know, you were derelict in your duty," said Issa.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. holds up a document as he speaks to IRS official Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, May 22, 2013, during the committee's hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny IRS gave to Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status.

"You misled Congress. Make no question about it … When you learned there was a list, you did nothing," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., who raised the prospect of appointing a special prosecutor in his opening remarks. "You abdicated your responsibility and you allowed Congress to proceed under your prior information that was false, that was untrue."

And for the first time, the IRS inspector general who generated the report that laid out the explosive allegations, J. Russell George, came under scrutiny from lawmakers. Issa pressed George as to why his office hadn't told Congress about indications of targeting at an earlier point during the investigation.

"I think it would behoove all of us to make sure that accurate information is given to Congress so we don’t act precipitously," George responded in reference to his office's actions.

The tense exchanges followed a somewhat explosive opening to the hearing, in which Lerner refused to answer lawmakers’ questions. But she delivered a brief statement explaining her role at the IRS and denying any wrongdoing.

That statement angered committee conservatives, who said that Lerner had essentially offered testimony, and thus had waived her ability to invoke her constitutional right to not testify. Issa dismissed Lerner nonetheless, but warned that his panel might again seek her testimony in the future. Following her dismissal, Lerner’s role remained largely absent through the questioning of the other witnesses.

The scrutiny of the IRS witnesses was characteristic of a hearing that focused far more on the actions of the agency and the subsequent investigation than whether the IRS came under undue influence from the Obama administration to single out conservatives.

The one administration witness, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, denied that he had ever directed the targeting of conservative groups. "Absolutely not, congresswoman," he said in response to a question on that matter, one of the few questions he faced during the hearing.

While Republicans have insinuated for much of the last two weeks that the IRS abuses were part of a "culture of intimidation" within the Obama administration, that line of inquiry generally took a backseat during Wednesday's hearing. (By contrast, Republicans focused on finding ties to Obama much more during a hearing last Friday by the House Ways and Means Committee and a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee.)

An exception to that came when Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, linked the Obama administration’s assertion that the IRS abuses were limited to rogue employees to its initial assertion following last year’s terror attack in Benghazi that it was the outgrowth of a spontaneous protest. (This assertion about Benghazi was eventually proved wrong, and has become another point of contention between the White House and congressional Republicans.)

Related Stories:

• Ex-Cincy IRS official doubts agency's explanation for Tea Party scandal

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 10:41 AM EDT

A top IRS official scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight committee has notified Congress that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit which handled tax-exempt organizations, won't answer questions about what she knows about the improper screening of conservative groups or about why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress that such targeting was going on, according to a letter from her lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd. 

The news of Lerner's intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment was first reported Tuesday by the L.A. Times.

Some members of Congress have called for Lerner to be relieved of her responsibilities. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) alleged that she gave false and misleading testimony to Congress.

Her lawyer wrote, "She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course."

A spokesman for the House committee said: "The Committee has been contacted by Ms. Lerner's lawyer who stated that his client intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow's hearing -- the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight. Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs."

An FBI criminal investigation has been launched into whether any of the IRS actions were illegal and potentially into whether senior officials lied to Congress. Given that, testifying under oath carries added legal risk. 

With a final committee vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill finally in sight, proponents of immigration reform won the support of a key Republican panel member after hammering out a bipartisan compromise dealing with visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, long considered a Republican swing vote on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee, announced Tuesday night that he will vote the comprehensive immigration reform bill out of committee after the panel approved language relaxing restrictions on employers seeking to hire foreign workers for high-tech jobs. But he cautioned that he may vote against the bill on Senate floor if other changes to the legislation are not made.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, questions witnesses during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

The new language was the result of a deal between Hatch and Gang of Eight negotiator Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, designed specifically to woo the Utah Republican but risking the ire of labor groups who believe the changes will hurt American workers who are qualified for the same high-tech jobs.

"We have been and remain opposed to Hatch's amendments," AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser said of the compromise language. "On the same say day that the Senate is grilling Apple for tax avoidance, it is a mistake to support an amendment so that tech companies can avoid hiring qualified American workers."

The Hatch-Schumer amendment passed by voice vote. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the panel, attempted to change its provisions, but his amendments were voted down

As written, the bill would initially raise the cap the number of H1-B visas from 65,000 to 110,000 -- with provisions to increase that number to 180,000.

Gang of Eight negotiator Sen. Marco Rubio, who has worked to garner support for the legislation among his fellow Republicans, welcomed Hatch's backing for the bill. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of Senator Hatch’s proposal to improve the H-1B visa provisions in the immigration legislation address key concerns shared by many conservatives," he said in a statement. "We must modernize our broken legal immigration system to meet the needs of America’s 21st century economy and create jobs. Senator Hatch’s amendment provides important protections for American workers while also ensuring that fast-growing and high-tech firms can continue to create jobs here in America."

Earlier Tuesday, the committee voted down an amendment proposed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would have stripped out the Gang of Eight's foundational principle that qualified undocumented immigrants to the United States should be eligible to work towards full citizenship.  The amendment failed 5-13 , with Hatch joining Gang of Eight Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham in voting with Democrats against the measure.

Cruz, discussed as a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said the inclusion of the path to citizenship would "only encourage others to violate the law."

The Tea Party-affiliated senator added that, if the pathway remains in the bill, the reform effort will be voted down in the Republican-controlled House. That assertion was flatly rejected by Schumer, who retorted that "if we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform."

Another Cruz-sponsored amendment that would have made undocumented immigrants ineligible for means-tested federal benefits failed 6-12.

Hatch voted in support of that measure.

A few issues remain - including a possible high-stakes discussion about whether LGBT foreign nationals should be eligible to apply for green cards through their partners and spouses in the United States.

But senators hope to wrap up their committee work as soon as tonight and advance the amended bill to the full Senate, which is expected to take up the bill this summer.

On Tuesday, the top Republican in the upper chamber said he will not block the immigration debate on the Senate floor.

"With regard to getting started on the bill, it’s my intention if there is a motion to proceed required, to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said – indicating that he won’t support using Senate rules and procedures to keep the chamber from debating the legislation.

McConnell also said that he’s “hopeful” that a comprehensive immigration bill can pass the Senate.

“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward…I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators," he said. "So I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 4:33 PM EDT

Yes, the last two weeks haven't been kind to the Obama White House. Yes, the administration has found itself on the defensive -- regarding the IRS, Benghazi and leak-investigation controversies. And, yes, those stories aren't going way.

But it's also unclear if these controversies are political winners for the Republican Party.

In addition to new polls showing that President Obama's approval rating remains above 50 percent after these stories first surfaced, a Washington Post/ABC survey suggests that Republicans are suffering from a focus deficit.

According to the poll, just 33 percent of Americans believe congressional Republicans are mainly concentrating on matters that are personally important to them, while 60 percent say they aren’t.

By comparison, 51 percent say Obama is mainly focusing on things important to them, versus 44 percent who disagree -- matching his approval rating in the poll

And 43 percent of respondents think congressional Democrats are concentrating on matters of importance, compared with 50 percent who say they're not.

Bottom line: The public believes that Obama and the Democrats are focusing more on the issues they care about than Republicans are. 

Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru reaches a similar conclusion in his latest column.

[Republicans] have no real health-care agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.

Congressional Republicans were right to press for hearings on all of these issues. But investigations of the administration won’t supply them with ideas. They won’t make the public trust Republicans. They won’t save them from themselves.

Political observer Charlie Cook adds:

But at what point do [Republicans] decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side?

Yet a problem for Republicans -- if they decide to turn their attention to other issues -- is that Republicans really care about these controversies.

According to a separate Pew poll, 37 percent of Republicans are following the IRS story very closely (compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents), while 34 percent of Republicans are following the Benghazi investigation closely (versus 18 percent of Democrats and 26 of indies).

So Republicans might find themselves trapped in this box: They really want to focus on these controversies, and their voters do, too. But others want the GOP to concentrate their attention elsewhere.

U.S. senators of both parties directed outrage at top IRS officials over not being informed earlier as to the tax agency’s work to target conservatives and demanded answers Tuesday as to why action was not taken more quickly to halt the abuses. 

Senators voiced their dismay at the IRS leadership’s efforts to respond to indications that officials in the agency’s Cincinnati office had singled out conservative and Tea Party advocacy that had applied for tax-exempt status. 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. demanded to know, “Why wasn't more firm action taken by people, either the commissioner himself or by people at the top?  It's outrageous. Any person can figure out this is unacceptable conduct.” 

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican, said there was no doubt the episode constitutes a “scandal,” saying it “undermines Americans' trust that their government will enforce the law without regard for political beliefs or party affiliation.” 

A former IRS commissioner who presided over most of the time in which the IRS targeted conservatives, Douglas Shulman, told members of the committee that he was not aware of the full facts surrounding the abuses until earlier this month. 

And Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner who resigned from that position last week, took responsibility for the controversial manner in which the IRS sought to first publicize the agency’s abuses ahead of the release of an inspector general report on the matter. Miller said he was responsible for a plot to plant a question for an IRS official, Lois Lerner, at an American Bar Association panel discussion to allow her to publicly reveal the IRS targeting. 

“Obviously, the entire thing was an incredibly bad idea,” said Miller about the strategy, explaining that the IRS had failed to follow through with its plan to simultaneously brief Capitol Hill about the forthcoming report.

Those revelations hardly comforted Democratic or Republican senators alike, whose hearing marked the second official inquiry into the IRS controversy. Baucus openly wondered why IRS employees who engaged in or oversaw the abuses were not fired.

The revelations about the work by IRS officials to single out conservatives have become enmeshed with partisan politics. Though President Barack Obama has condemned the abuses and vowed to cooperate with congressional investigations into the matter, that has hardly silenced Republicans’ criticism of the controversy.

The GOP has focused heavily on the question of when Obama was made aware of the IRS’s practices, and whether he should have been briefed on the matter sooner. A hearing last week found that senior Treasury Department officials were notified of the existence of the investigation as early as last summer. And White House press secretary Jay Carney disclosed Monday that the White House counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, was notified of the details of the forthcoming report in late April. She, in turn, briefed White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior officials, though they decided against personally briefing Obama.

But much of senators’ ire on Tuesday focused on the IRS leadership’s awareness of the singling out of conservatives as it unfolded, and their disclosure of those abuses to Congress during the subsequent investigation.

Shulman defended his performance by explaining that he did not know the full facts of the inspector general’s findings. He said he found out sometime during the spring of 2012 that there was a list including the word “Tea Party” being used by the officials in the tax-exempt office. But Shulman maintained he did not know what other words were on that list, nor was he aware of the severity or scope of the abuses.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican, confer during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

“When I left, the I.G. was looking into this to gather all of the facts,” he said. “I've now had the benefit of reading the report and that's the full accounting of facts that I have at this point.”

Republicans voiced outrage that no IRS official had disclosed their awareness of potential abuses or an investigation into the controversy during lawmakers’ efforts to get answers to that very question during the past few years.

“That is a lie by omission and you kept it from the people who are required to oversee this matter,” Hatch angrily told Miller, the outgoing IRS chief who had declined to previously reveal the IRS targeting.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 12:15 PM EDT