Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) shakes hands with his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto after a joint news conference at the National Palace in Mexico City May 2, 2013.

President Barack Obama warned lawmakers against erecting unnecessarily high benchmarks for a pending overhaul of immigration laws, suggesting they would excuse inaction by Congress.

The president, following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, said that he remained “optimistic” that Congress could produce a comprehensive immigration reform law this year – an issue of particular importance to millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans residing in the United States.

But, responding to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s suggestion that the bipartisan immigration law he helped produce might need even stronger provisions on border security in order to win the necessary votes for passage, Obama warned members of Congress.

“Frankly, we put enormous resources into border security.  There are areas where, frankly, there is more work to be done,” Obama said. “But what I’m not going to do is go along with something where we’re looking for an excuse not to do it.”

In an interview on Wednesday with conservative talker Sean Hannity, Rubio, a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that authored a new immigration law, said the aspects in the law dealing with border security might need more work.

“The part we still have to do some work on is this border stuff,” Rubio said. “And as I said yesterday … this bill will not pass the House and quite frankly I think will struggle to pass the Senate if it doesn’t deal with that issue.”

Conservatives have demanded stronger border provisions as part of a broad immigration reform deal in exchange for creating a pathway to citizenship for those currently residing in the United States without any documentation.

Peña Nieto, for his part, said that the Mexican government “understands that this is a domestic affair for the U.S.” and wished its northern neighbor the best of luck in its reform efforts.

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 6:26 PM EDT

Women are a key driver of support for legislation overhauling the nation's gun and immigration laws, according to new data in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just as Congress prepares to take up major legislation on both of those issues.

Women outpace men in their support for stricter gun laws and immigration reform that provides undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, data which becomes more salient in light of the Republican Party’s effort to regain its footing with women voters after last fall’s elections.

View full poll results here

The gender gap is most pronounced when it comes to the issue of stricter gun controls, legislation on which the Senate voted to begin consideration this Thursday.

Sixty-five percent of women said they favor stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus just 5 percent who favor less strict laws. Twenty-seven percent of women said the law should be kept as it is now. By comparison, 44 percent of men favor stricter gun laws, while 41 percent said laws should stay the same.

(Also of note: Self-described mothers favor stricter gun laws even more overwhelmingly; 70 percent of mothers with children in the home said that laws governing firearm sales should be tightened.)

While the gap is less pronounced, women respondents in this month’s NBC/WSJ poll were more sympathetic to arguments in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

Women favor immigration reform that allows a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants by a 36-point margin. Sixty-seven percent of women said they would favor such a proposal, versus 31 percent who would oppose those reforms. Men also favor immigration reform, but by a slightly slimmer, 60 percent to 38 percent spread.

When explained that a pathway to citizenship would involve paying a fine, any back taxes, passing a security background check and taking other measures, men and women would favor immigration reform at roughly the same levels: Seventy-eight percent of women favor such a proposal, versus 74 percent of men.

The gender gap also extends to some high-profile social issues at the forefront of American political debate at the moment, like same-sex marriage.

In the poll, women favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 56 percent to 40 percent. Men, by contrast, favor allowing same-sex marriages, 50 percent to 43 percent. (That's a relatively seismic shift for men; in the March 2004 NBC/WSJ poll, just 26 percent of men favored gay marriage, while 52 percent opposed.)

The poll was conducted April 5-8, and has a 4.3 percent margin of error for the subsample of women, and a 4.5 percent margin of error for the subsample of men.

With a bipartisan group of senators expected to unveil immigration-reform legislation in the next few days, a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans – including eight-in-10 Latinos – support giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

A slight majority of Republican respondents oppose this path, possibly foreshadowing the resistance which any comprehensive immigration reform bill might receive, especially in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

But when Republicans hear that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants includes paying fines and back taxes, almost three-quarters of them support the idea.

What’s more, a majority of the public – for the first time in the poll – agrees with the statement that immigration strengthens the nation, reflecting a shift in attitude on this issue. 

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, says that this change in sentiment on immigration “speaks to something potent,” particularly given the economic struggles of the past five years.

"These more positive attitudes provide more leeway for lawmakers to build support for change on this issue," McInturff adds.

View the poll results here

On other matters, the poll shows a majority of the public favors stricter gun laws, President Barack Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time since Oct. 2012, and fewer than two-in-10 Americans saying the automatic budget cuts known as “the sequester” have significantly affected them.

Immigration – a strength or weakness?
A majority (54 percent) agrees with the statement that immigration adds to the nation’s character and strengthens it by bringing diversity and talent to the country.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters march in the "Rally for Citizenship" on the West Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2013.

In a 2010 NBC/WSJ survey, fewer than half of respondents agreed with that statement, and in 2005, a plurality said that immigration weakened the nation.

Additionally, the Democratic Party holds a 7-point advantage over the Republican Party on the question of which party does a better job in dealing with immigration.

Among an oversample of Latino respondents, the Democratic edge increases to 26 points.

Regarding the current legislative debate over immigration, 64 percent of respondents say they favor allowing undocumented immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal American citizens.

That includes 82 percent of Latinos, 80 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of political independents supporting a path to citizenship.

But 51 percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 47 percent who back it.

Yet when told that the pathway to citizenship would require paying fines and back taxes, as well as passing a security-background check, support grows – with 76 percent of total respondents, and 73 percent of Republicans backing the path.

That pathway to citizenship is the heart of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators – including Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio – are drafting and plan to introduce in the next few days.

The proposal also calls for strengthening the U.S.-Mexico border, tying that security to establishing the path to citizenship and expanding legal immigration.

A majority of all respondents (51 percent) believe undocumented immigrants should be eligible for citizenship five years after application. Just 12 percent say the eligibility should occur after 10 years, and only 18 percent believe citizenship should be immediate.

On border security, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) think the U.S.-Mexico border is “mostly” or “totally” not secure, compared with a smaller percentage of Latino respondents (49 percent) who believe that.

55 percent favor stricter gun laws
In addition to immigration, Congress is grappling with the issue of gun control, with the Senate expected to vote on Thursday whether to begin debate on a Democratic-backed measure requiring background checks for most gun sales.

According to the poll, 55 percent favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms.

That’s down 6 points from the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll – conducted after Obama’s State of the Union address that contained a call to action on gun control – but it’s essentially unchanged from the Jan. 2013 poll.

Yet there’s a wide political divide to these numbers: 82 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while just 27 percent of Republicans do.

Obama’s approval rating drops to 47 percent
Despite majorities backing the broad outlines of his legislative priorities on immigration and guns, President Obama confronts a pessimistic public and declining poll numbers.

Only 31 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – a decline of 10 points since Dec. 2012.

His overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down 3 points since February and which represents the first time he’s been below 50 percent since just before the 2012 election.

In addition, 47 percent approve of the president’s economic handling (up three points from February), and 46 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy (down six from Dec. 2012).

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research says that the public’s sour attitude, particularly on the economy, has “dragged down” Obama’s numbers.

Sequester’s limited impact (so far)
Lastly, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that only a combined 16 percent of Americans say the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect earlier in the year have impacted them either “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

By comparison, a whopping 75 percent say the cuts to military and non-military programs have affected them “just some” or “not much.”

But a plurality of respondents – 47 percent – believe the cuts will mostly harm the economy, versus 30 percent who say they won’t have an impact.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

After a lengthy stalemate over automatic budget cuts - capped by a closed-door White House meeting with bipartisan leaders that yielded no deal - the president will head to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue next week to meet with his political rivals in the Senate. 

President Barack Obama will meet with Senate Republicans at a Thursday luncheon on the Hill on March 14, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Wednesday. 

Obama has also requested a meeting with House Republicans, although the date has not yet been scheduled. 

"Senate Republicans welcome the president to the Capitol. And I appreciate he took my recommendation to hear from all of my members," McConnell said in a statement. 

McConnell added that Republicans plan to discuss government spending and the economy at the meeting. 

Recommended: Boehner Wants Budget Deals 'Out in the Open'

The rare lunch get-together comes after Obama spoke to a handful of Republican senators by phone to address legislation on spending, immigration and gun control. 

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

President Barack Obama meets with his Cabinet at the White House March 4, 2013. Obama and Congress remain locked in stalled budget negotiations as the effect of the sequestration begin to impact the U.S. economy.

The New York Times first reported Tuesday that a group of Republicans have been invited to dinner with Obama this evening, although the heavy snow falling in Washington, D.C. could delay the effort to thaw political relationships until a night with improved weather conditions. 

The Republican senators expected to attend the dinner at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington are: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Dan Coats of Indiana, Ton Coburn of Oklahoma, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. 

The president last attended a Senate GOP luncheon on May 25, 2010.

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Wed Mar 6, 2013 9:56 AM EST

*** Thursday’s “The Daily Rundown” line-up: A deep dive into what the 1994 gun fight tells us about this one with Democratic strategist Debbie Dingell… Understanding the trillion dollar coin idea with Politico’s Ben White and former Bush 43 spokesman Tony Fratto… Plus Club for Growth’s Chris Chocola, the New York Times’ Jackie Calmes and Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons on diversity in the Cabinet, the “hell no” caucus on the Hill, and the potential 2016 crowd of governors delivering their “state of the state” remarks.

*** Thursday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry, the Advancement Project’s Leila McDowell, the Human Rights Campaign’s Fred Sainz and former Biden Economic Advisor Jared Bernstein.  Today’s Power Panel includes: MSNBC Contributor Joy-Ann Reid, Democratic Strategist Chris Kofinis and Republican Strategist John Brabender.

*** Thursday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief David Corn, Retired Army Captain Wes Moore, Time Assistant Managing Editor Rana Foroohar, Bloomberg View’s Jonathan Alter, and Rolling Stone Contributing Editor Matt Taibbi

*** Thursday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), The Economist’s Greg Ip, Politico’s Mike Allen, The New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Ruth Marcus and USA Today’s Susan Page.

*** Thursday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, The Hill’s Amie Parnes, Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis, MSNBC contributor Michael Smerconish and Giuliana Rancic from E!

Chuck Hagel -- a man without a party… And a man who has a tough confirmation fight ahead… The nut of the Hagel fight, and why Obama is sticking with him… Kerry-Hagel-Brennan -- a Team of Loyalists… McConnell on the upcoming fiscal fight… White House’s “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign to curb gun violence… And Hillary Clinton returns to work.

*** Hagel -- a man without a party: This afternoon, President Obama will tap former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel to be his nominee to lead the Defense Department. Hagel’s biggest obstacle to confirmation isn’t his controversial comments about Iran and Israel or his “overly aggressive gay” remark. Rather, it’s that he’s a man without a party. If Hagel were a Democrat, for instance, you would have seen someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) embrace his potential nomination on “Meet the Press” recently instead of being tepid about it. And if Hagel were a true-blue Republican -- having campaigned for Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates last fall -- you wouldn’t have seen folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) speak so critically of him. But Hagel’s in no-man’s-land territory, the place where the public says it wants many public officials to be, but where Washington can eat folks like this alive. He’s a Republican who later opposed the Iraq war, whose wife endorsed Obama in ’08, and who campaigned for Democrat Bob Kerrey in 2012. In recent times, every cabinet nominee from the opposition party (Bill Cohen, Norm Mineta, Bob Gates, Ray LaHood) has sailed through easily. But since we started covering politics, Hagel might be the first cabinet nominee from the opposition party who doesn't have the backing from that party. It’s amazing how things can change: Republicans universally support John Kerry for Secretary of State, but oppose Chuck Hagel for Defense.

Jim Young / Reuters

Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., attends a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in this file photo from Oct. 28, 2009.

*** And a tough fight ahead: That said, Hagel does have a constituency of one -- and that’s the president of the United States. But it’s not going to be an easy fight. In fact, we’ve heard that as many as 10 DEMOCRATIC senators might be “no” votes on Hagel, or they at least start out as “no” on Hagel. So Hagel will have a lot of work to do, especially in his individual meetings with Democrats. Yet we hear that Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D) will campaign heavily for Hagel, and that could flip Dem votes; Reed is very close to Hagel and very well respected on both sides of the aisle. Here’s something to chew on: What message would it send if Hagel -- a decorated war hero, a Vietnam vet, a two-term senator who served in office without scandal -- doesn’t get confirmed? As administration official told the New York Times, “At the end of the day, Republicans will support a decorated war hero who was their colleague for 12 years and has critical experience on veterans’ issues.” But as we argue above, Hagel’s bigger problem might be with Democrats, not Republicans. And don’t be surprised if you start hearing this complaint from Democrats: “Why does our party continue to pick Republicans (like Cohen, Bob Gates, and now Hagel) to head up the Defense Department?”

*** The nut of Hagel fight: There are two basic lines of attack against Hagel. One has to do with whether he’s a true ally of Israel. Detractors point to some votes Hagel made when it came to Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as some votes on Iran sanctions. But supporters of Hagel note he always voted in favor of full funding of Israel aid and did sign on to key pieces of legislation that did target Iran’s nuclear program and did target Hamas. Then, of course, is the quote attributed to Hagel where he referred to pro-Israel groups as “the Jewish lobby,” which is offensive to both pro-Israel supporters and Jews who do not like to be lumped in with the AIPAC’s of the world. Gay rights groups are not excited at all about Hagel because of comments the Nebraska Republican made against a gay ambassador nominee from the Clinton years, when he referred to James Hormel as “openly aggressively gay.” Former Congressman and (and potential TEMPORARY Massachusetts senator) Barney Frank has been highly critical. So there is a lot of “cover,” if you will, for someone on the left or right who WANTS to oppose Hagel to find a political reason to oppose him. But realize, some of the real reasons for folks to be against Hagel won’t be the issues we discussed above. For some Republican senators, it will simply be the fact that many of Hagel’s former Republican colleagues have not gotten over Hagel’s high-profile flip on the Iraq war. And for some Democrats, it’s the frustration that the president is turning to his SECOND Republican to run the Defense Department.

*** Why Obama is sticking with Hagel: So with all this potential political controversy surrounding Hagel, one might ask, “Why is Obama sticking by him?” There are two big reasons. One, he likes the idea of a man who wore the uniform who will NOT be intimidated by the generals at the Pentagon. And two, with the budget fights dominating the next few years in Washington and the issue of downsizing the Pentagon on the table, what better person to have leading the downsizing argument than a former Republican senator.

*** A Team of Loyalists: In addition to making the Hagel pick today, President Obama will announce White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be his nominee to head the CIA, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Officials argue that, since 9/11, he has been at the forefront, on the front lines against al Qaeda. He has been involved in virtually "all major national security issues and will be able to hit the ground running at CIA,” the officials add to Mitchell. Brennan also has the complete confidence and trust of the president. And that’s the big signal Obama is sending by picking John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Defense, and John Brennan for CIA -- he’s selecting people with whom he’s comfortable and who are loyal to him. (And in National Journal, Ron Fournier writes that Hagel “is Obama in a GOP jersey,” and that’s his biggest problem.) Bottom line: These are Obama people. But these are also three white men, and you’re going to start hearing voices demanding diverse picks for the other cabinet positions. And that grumbling could get louder when, as it is expected, the president names current Chief of Staff Jack Lew to Treasury and elevates current dep. National Security Adviser Denis McDonough to Chief of Staff. This could end up being a very busy week at the White House on the personnel front.

*** McConnell on the upcoming fiscal fight: The other big news today is over the upcoming political fight over the debt ceiling, the sequester, and government operations. On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – who helped strike the fiscal-cliff deal with the Obama White House – didn’t disavow his 2011 comment that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is “a hostage that's worth ransoming." McConnell told NBC’s Gregory yesterday, “What we're saying here is the biggest problem confronting the country is our excessive spending. If we're not going to deal with it now, when are we going to deal with it? And we've watched the government explode over the last four years. We've dealt with the revenue issue.” When Gregory followed up to ask if tax revenue would not be part of the conversation, McConnell replied, “Yeah, that's over. I'm in favor of doing tax reform, but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the Reagan years. We've resolved this issue.” But McConnell also declined to answer if he would rule out a government shutdown. “What I'm telling you is I haven't given up on the president stepping up to the plate and tackling the single biggest issue confronting the country.” While McConnell was careful not to threaten a government shutdown, many of the Republican rank-and-file were not.

*** White House’s “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign to curb gun violence: Also, the Washington Post reported yesterday that the Obama White House “is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.” More: “A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.”

*** Hillary Clinton returns to work today: After her concussion and her hospitalization due to a blood clot, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returns to work today, meeting with her assistant secretaries at 9:15 pm ET.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

The specifics are still lacking.

Mitt Romney promises to balance the budget by 2020, after his eight years in office, if elected. But a Romney surrogate went on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown this morning and had a difficult time defending the candidate’s lack of specifics.

“I’m not an economist, and I’m not going to play an economist,” Romney adviser Tara Wall told NBC’s Luke Russert, guest-hosting for Chuck Todd, after Russert pressed for details on how Romney would close the nation’s deficits. “Mitt Romney has a proven record,” she added.

Wall noted that Romney would give tax breaks, “replace ObamaCare,” and make spending cuts and streamline government.

Russert pointed out that Romney proposes to increase defense spending and cut taxes even more, which would increase spending and reduce revenue. So, what are the offsets? Russert asked.

Wall deflected.

"There's plenty of time to learn and hear more from the candidates,” Wall said, adding that Romney would get rid of “new regulations, overzealous regulations.”

And then she wanted to talk about the campaign’s latest attack on President Obama as being “anti-business.”

“Look at where our growth comes from,” she said, adding that Romney would not be “maligning our small businesses, not demonizing small businesses.”

Pressed for specifics on Afghanistan, given Romney’s upcoming trip abroad, Wall again deflected, contending these aren’t the issues that are most important to the election.

Read: Romney weathers growing media clamor for policy details

Read: Would wealthy really pay same share of taxes under Romney?

Updated 12:04 p.m. - The Supreme Court's determination last week that health care reform could be sustained as an extension of the power of Congress to tax has launched a battle of political semantics in Washington over taxes. 

Republicans have latched on to the high court's ruling that the individual mandate -- the requirement that individuals have insurance, or pay a penalty to the IRS -- was essentially a tax. Though the majority decision was authored, ironically, by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, it offered an affirmation of Republicans' long-held contention that President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement represented a tax hike.

Democrats have preferred, instead, to call it a "penalty" rather than a tax, parrying Republicans' attacks by using language presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has used in defense of his own similar health reform law in Massachusetts.

As recently as this Monday morning, the Romney campaign was using the same language.

"It was a penalty, and the governor had all the authority he needed under our state constitution to put in the reforms that he did put in place," Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said this morning on MSNBC. "The governor has consistently described the mandate in Massachusetts as a penalty."

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom

The aftermath of the court's ruling, in short, has resulted in a bizarre situation. Republicans -- including Romney -- attack "ObamaCare" as a tax, even as the party's standard-bearer uses language to defend the Massachusetts law that closely resembles Obama's law. (The Romney campaign is also quick to note that there are other taxes included in the health care law beyond the mandate.)

“The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty. Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position: is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?” asked Amanda Henneberg, a spokeswoman for Romney.

And Democrats are uncomfortably wedded to a Supreme Court decision that handed them their desired outcome, but created for them a new political headache. Mindful that embracing a new tax could be politically treacherous for them in November, the White House and Democrats downballot are scrambling to spin the mandate as anything but a tax, despite the court's ruling and the fact that the "penalty" is paid to the IRS.

Republicans pointed to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's comments toward the decision on "Meet the Press" this Sunday as an acknowledgement of that.

"It's a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1 percent, perhaps, of the population who decide they're going to be free riders," said the California Democrat, who as House speaker was one of the law's chief proponents.

The GOP is likely to find much more success in using this tactic downballot. They have been hammering away at House and Senate candidates since the decision was first announced.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, for instance, has targeted Democratic candidates in releases and videos throughout the weekend for supporting, they assert, a tax hike.

For its part, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has pushed back by launching automated calls against Republicans that accuse them of wishing to "put insurance companies back in charge of our health care."

But that appears set to be a separate battle from the one between Romney and Obama. Republicans' most visible figure this election year will have trouble explaining to voters how his proposal in Massachusetts is not a tax, but Obama's is. That was a chief conservative criticism of Romney during the primary: that he was the worst possible candidate to challenge Obama on health care, because of the similar law he had passed.

Conclusion from focus group of 12 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents: Romney still has some work to do with these folks… The good news for him: It’s not an impossible lift… The fight for the Latino vote continues… The “silly season” continues, too… But we have to ask: Why does Romney continue to hang out with Donald Trump?... Veepstakes watch: Bob McDonnell will begin airing ads to boost his image… And Jesse Kelly wins GOP primary for the Giffords seat.

Jae C. Hong / AP

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney meets with a group of Pittsburgh area residents in Bethel Park, Pa., Tuesday, April 17, 2012.

TAMPA, FL -- One week after Mitt Romney became the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, have Republicans and conservatives begun to rally around him? A brand-new New York Times/CBS poll says yes. But a focus group of 12 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents that Democratic pollster Peter Hart conducted last night here in the city that will host the Republican convention in August painted a more complex picture. While an overwhelming majority of these participants said they would vote for Romney in November and while they touted his business background, it was clear many of them had reservations about the former Massachusetts governor -- whether it was his past flip-flops, his ability to beat Obama, or their belief they didn’t know more about him.  After the focus group ended, Hart made this observation about Romney to a handful of reporters covering the event: “He has a lot of work to do. But it isn’t an impossible lift.”

*** The 12 participants: First, a little background on the participants of this focus group that was sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center: These 12 people -- a mixture of diehard conservatives and at least one moderate who said he no longer felt comfortable in today’s GOP -- all had either voted for McCain in ’08, Marco Rubio in ’10, or Rick Scott in ’10. As it turns out, four said they actually voted for Obama four years ago. Now? Seven said they are “definitely” voting for Romney; two are “probably” voting for Romney; two are voting for Obama; and one said he’s undecided. Interestingly, the group was split (6-6) on who they thought would win in November -- either Romney or Obama. Hart summed up the purpose behind the assembled focus group: “This is the group you have to have if you’re going to win” the White House as a Republican.

*** “Stick to something”: Yet what was striking were the reservations these folks, even the most conservative ones, had about Romney. Their biggest concerns were that he’s changed his positions and that he hasn’t been consistent on the issues. Asked to give advice to Romney, Julie -- a 56-year-old paralegal from Tampa -- responded:  “Make a stand whether people like it or not.” Carin, an unemployed 53-year-old Tampa resident, added: “Not change positions but be consistent.” And Debra, a 55-year-old from Plant City who said she voted for Obama in ’08 (but is no longer really considering that), said: “Stick to something.” But the reservations went beyond issue flip-flops. They also focused on whether Romney was tough enough. Ron, a 66-year-old retiree living in Largo who is undecided, described Romney as the “lesser of two evils.” But he went on to say: “I am not sure Romney has what it takes to win.”

*** “I want to believe he would be good”: Theresa, a 30-year-old tech vendor in St. Petersburg who said she supported Santorum during the primary season, gave this response if Romney would have ordered the strike against bin Laden: “I want to believe he would be good.” Then there was the concern that they don’t know ENOUGH about Romney. Jonathan, a 27-year-old deputy police officer, said this in a discussion about whether Romney is a regular guy: “I only know Mitt Romney as the businessman… George [W.] Bush felt like a regular guy.” He added, “You know Obama likes basketball.” And there was the critique that Romney is too stiff. “I would like for him to loosen up,” said Bruno, a 57-year-old music teacher living in Plant City. Hart concluded that these undeveloped views of Romney aren’t surprising when you consider that he won the GOP primary season by disqualifying Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum and who is trying to win in November by disqualifying the incumbent president. And guess what? Romney at 3:40 pm ET is giving a speech countering Obama in the city hosting the Democratic convention, Charlotte. In fact, the campaign is billing the remarks as a “prebuttal to Barack Obama's DNC speech.”

*** The good news for Romney: So that was the bad news for Romney from this focus group. The good news: These folks WANT to know more about him. Hart asked an interesting question -- if the 12 would rather have a dinner conservation with Romney or his wife Ann. Interestingly, all but one picked the former Massachusetts governor over his wife. Why? To get to know him better. Julie said she wants to see “what his true personality is… I am hoping he is cool.” In other good news for Romney, most of the participants often referred positively to his business experience, even on matters like deficit-reduction negotiations and dealing with China. And almost all of them had no doubts that he would seek to repeal the federal health-care law. Score this for Team Romney -- the businessman and health-care messaging definitely got through to these voters. 

*** The fight for the Latino vote continues: At 10:30 am ET, the Obama campaign is hosting a conference call -- to be joined by Sen. Bob Menendez and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro -- announcing the launch of “Latinos for Obama.” The Obama campaign also says it will begin airing TV and radio ads in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada featuring Obama organizers who talk about how the president has “empowered” Latino communities. Meanwhile, the AP is reporting that Sen. Marco Rubio is putting together legislation that would be a conservative alternative to the DREAM Act. Unlike that legislation, which was filibustered in 2010, the Rubio legislation would allow young illegal immigrants who are attending college or serving in the military to remain in the U.S. – but it wouldn’t give them a path to citizenship.

*** What also continues? The silly season: Last week, we wrote that this presidential campaign had entered the “silly season,” with all the focus on that Hilary Rosen controversy. Well, the silly season is continuing – this time with Democrats trying to make Romney own what conservative rocker Ted Nugent said about the president. This campaign has taken on the negative stereotype of Twitter -- snarky, obnoxious, and biting. But we do have to ask: What did Romney expect when he courted the incendiary Nugent? And speaking of people who have been in the middle of manufactured controversies… Why is Romney continuing to hang out with Donald Trump? If Trump says something controversial -- and trust us, he will; he can’t help himself -- Romney will deserve more ownership of those comments than Team Obama did for what Hilary Rosen said. By the way, we’re not even going to discuss this dog-meat business. We don’t blame folks if they are wondering if it might be better to go into a political coma for the next 90 days and pick back up when the conventions begin.

*** On the GOP trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Romney stumps in North Carolina, attending three events in Charlotte...Gingrich makes two stops in Millersville, PA and later visits Georgetown, DE and Wilmington, DC…Meanwhile; Paul attends an event in Kingstown, RI.

*** Veepstakes watch: How bad does Bob McDonnell want to be Romney’s VP? The Washington Post: “Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican who is term-limited but a likely vice presidential contender, plans to air “positive” TV ads in the coming weeks as he looks to bolster his approval ratings and remind viewers of Virginia’s successes following a spate of bad publicity.” Folks, McDonnell can’t run for re-election in Virginia. This seems to be all about rehabilitating his image for veepstakes. McDonnell will be on “The Daily Rundown” this morning to discuss this new push.

*** Kelly wins GOP primary: Finally, in the GOP primary for Gabby Giffords’ vacated congressional seat, Jesse Kelly -- Giffords’ opponent in 2010 -- won last night’s contest, and he’ll face former Giffords aide Ron Barber in June, the Arizona Republic reports.

Countdown to the CT, DE, NY, PA, and RI primaries: 6 days

Countdown to Election Day: 202 days

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

Romney’s immigration challenge… What Beth Myers heading up Romney’s VP search means…. Three very different polls in the Obama-Romney race… Romney to Obama: “Start packing”… Buffett Rule, as expected, goes down to defeat… Obama to make statement about market manipulation of oil prices at 11:10 am ET… Lugar mailer hits Mourdock… And GOP primary for Giffords’ seat in AZ takes place today.

Tim Shaffer / Reuters

Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney speaks during the Independence Hall Tea Party Association's Tax Day Tea Summit at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 16, 2012.

*** Romney’s immigration challenge: Lost in the other statements Romney made at that Sunday fundraiser in Florida was his admission that he needs to move to the center to win over Latinos. "We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," Romney said, observing that polls show Latinos breaking in huge percentages for President Obama "spells doom for us." Romney even said the GOP should offer something like a “Republican DREAM Act” to help woo Latinos. But there’s a challenge here for Romney, and it’s the same one Meg Whitman faced in 2010: How do you move back to center on immigration after running so hard to the right during the primary? Indeed, unlike other issues where he simply adopted conservative/Tea Party rhetoric (on health care, taxes, the deficit), Romney often used immigration as a weapon, particularly against Rick Perry. In addition, Romney said he would veto the DREAM Act, called Arizona’s immigration law “a model”, and proudly accepted the endorsement of the man considered the architect of that Arizona law, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

*** Is fixing his female problem easier than his Latino problem? Romney has the potential to fix his problem with female voters; after all, it’s not really his problem but rather the GOP’s. And he does have a story to tell here (wife Ann, the women he appointed in Massachusetts). But when it comes to immigration, this is an issue where he’s been consistent over the past five years as a way to prove his conservative bona fides (first against McCain, then against Perry and Gingrich). These are his words, not just the party's rhetoric being attached to him, and it’s going to be hard to take the back. Again, we’ll remind you that Obama’s Latino path (CO, NM, NV, and VA) is a not-so-hard way for him to get to 270 electoral votes -- without having to win Ohio or Florida (which also has LOTS of Latinos). 

*** What tapping Beth Myers means: That, of course, brings us to veepstakes. Is Romney able to patch up his Latino problem with, say, Marco Rubio as his running mate? Yesterday,  learned that the former Massachusetts governor tapped his longtime aide and ’08 campaign manager, Beth Myers, to lead his VP search. (Interestingly, Myers gave an interview yesterday to conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin. Does this mean Team Romney is going to be more public about this vetting process than past presumptive nominees have been?) Myers means that Romney will probably pick someone he’s VERY comfortable with. Beth Myers isn’t going to get you Sarah Palin; she’s going to get you someone you’ve campaigned with/interacted with quite a bit. And a Beth Myers is a Romney legacy protector -- she's probably not going to get Romney someone who will over-shadow him either (Chris Christie, we mean you). Having Myers lead this search will only reinforce the C.W. that Romney is going to zero in on folks like Portman, Ryan or even a Kelly Ayotte and not be looking for, shall we say, a game-changer.

*** Three very different polls: Boy, the polls were all over the place yesterday in this general election contest that’s barely a week old. First, the Gallup Daily Tracking poll had Romney with a two-point edge over Obama among registered voters, 47%-45%. Then CNN released its own survey showing Obama with a nine-point lead, 52%-43% fueled by his support by female voters. And then Reuters/Ipsos had Obama with a narrow four-point advantage, 47%-43%, after leading him by double digits last month. A little advice when presented with diverging polling data: Shake the Magic 8 ball again. Or better yet, wait for the next reliable national poll. Which brings us to... the latest NBC/WSJ poll will be coming out on Thursday. 

*** Romney to Obama: Start packing: In his interview with ABC yesterday, Mitt Romney was asked what he would say to Obama. Romney’s answer: “Well, start packing. That's what I'd like to-- like to say.” (You think the former one-term governor wishes he worded that a bit differently? seemed to border on OVER-confidence, no?) Also in the interview, Romney side-stepped questions about releasing his tax returns prior to 2010. “The president is going to try and do everything possible to divert from the attention being focused upon his record as president and the failure of his economic policies... We've released all the information required by law and then some.” He also ducked a question about his wealth (the two Cadillacs, the La Jolla house, the car elevator). “I think people want to have a president who knows how to lead, who knows how to create jobs, who can get our economy creating the jobs it should so we can see rising incomes again.” And Ann Romney was asked about Seamus the dog, who she said “loved” traveling on the top of the car. “He would see that crate and, you know, he would, like, go crazy because he was going with us on vacation. It was to me a kinder thing to bring him along than to leave him in the kennel for … two weeks.”

*** Buffett Rule goes down to defeat: Yesterday, as expected, the Buffett Rule was unable to clear the Senate. By a mostly party-line vote, 51 senators (all of them Democrats) voted to invoke cloture and have the measure proceed, while 45 senators (all Republicans and one Democrat, Arkansas’ Mark Pryor) voted against. Four didn’t vote -- Akaka (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), Kirk (R-IL), and Lieberman (ID-CT). Lieberman released a statement saying he would have voted against had he been present. “I am not opposed to the Buffet Rule because I am opposed to raising income taxes on the wealthiest Americans. I am opposed to the Buffet Rule because it would double to 30 percent the capital gains tax on one group of investors and therefore reduce exactly the kind of capital investments we need to get our economy growing again and create jobs.”

*** Obama to tackle market manipulation of oil prices: The AP: “Under pressure to take action on rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama wants Congress to strengthen federal supervision of oil markets, increase penalties for market manipulation and empower regulators to increase the amount of money energy traders are required to put behind their transactions.” The president will make a statement about this at 11:10 am ET from the White House.

*** Reminder: Santorum still hasn’t endorsed Romney: Rick Santorum still hasn’t endorsed Romney, the LA Times notes. He “pointedly declined Monday night to endorse presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, instead pointing out that he has not backed a candidate in the race and urging his supporters to vote their conscience. ‘As far as how you vote, that’s up to you,’ Santorum told thousands of supporters during a conference call. ‘I haven’t supported any candidate at this point, so that’s really up to you.’” NBC’s Andrew Rafferty also reported on that conference call, writing that Santorum explained his decision to drop out had less to do with money and more with the inability of 1) Gingrich to exit the race and 2) of Texas to change its rules to be a winner-take-all contest. "I know there's been a lot of articles written that somehow we dropped out because we ran out of money. That just is a little, very, very small piece of the story," Santorum said. "The bottom line is we wanted to take this race as far as we could to the point where we felt that we could be successful."

*** On the GOP trail: Both Romney and Gingrich, in Pennsylvania, speak at a Lancaster County GOP… Gingrich also stumps in Harrisburg…. And Romney tapes an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow.

*** ‘Take a closer look’: Longtime Sen. Richard Lugar, in the fight for his political life, is taking on challenger state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in a new mailer going out today. The mailer, strewn with $100 bills, focuses on the federal budget, goes after President Obama – someone he worked closely with in the Senate – for the federal debt, and urges Indiana Republicans to “take a closer look” at Mourdock’s budget proposal. That phrase -- “take a closer look” -- appears twice, once with a magnifying glass near an ashen-looking Mourdock. The mailer quotes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which said, “Mourdock’s budget fails honesty test.” Lugar operative Andy Fisher said, “The mailer contrasts Senator Lugar's thoughtful approach to cutting federal spending - like supporting both the Ryan budget and 'Cut, Cap and Balance' - versus Richard Mourdock's irresponsible plan to cut Social Security benefits for current beneficiaries and put our national security at risk.”

*** GOP primary for Giffords’ seat: Lastly, today is the GOP primary in the contest to fill Gabby Giffords’ seat in Congress. The AP: “Voters in southern Arizona's 8th Congressional District are heading to the polls to choose who will face former Gabrielle Giffords aide Ron Barber in a special election to replace the wounded ex-congresswoman. Four Republican candidates are battling in Tuesday's special primary election called after the Democrat resigned in January to focus on recovering from a gunshot wound. The four include 2010 Giffords opponent Jesse Kelly , a businessman and tea party favorite; state Sen. Frank Antenori ; retired U.S. Air Force pilot and political newcomer Martha McSally ' and businessman and broadcaster Dave Sitton.” The general takes place on June 12. 

Countdown to the CT, DE, NY, PA, and RI primaries: 7 days
Countdown to Election Day: 203 days

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