The day after an overwhelming bipartisan vote to begin work on a comprehensive immigration reform bill, that debate got a little less, um, Kumbaya.

A procedural squabble erupted on the third day of formal discussion on the bill as both sides wrangled over how to begin the process of amending the legislation, and senators argued heatedly over a proposed amendment by Texas Sen. John Cornyn that would broaden the requirements for border security -- and, some say, could jeopardize the timeline for a path to citizenship. 

“We cannot accept his amendment, plain and simple,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, a key bill drafter, said of Cornyn’s measure on the Senate floor.

The Cornyn amendment has emerged as a major flashpoint, with some Republicans saying their support of the final bill will be contingent upon its inclusion. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has labeled the proposal a “poison pill” designed to throw up roadblocks for undocumented immigrants hoping to work their way toward legal permanent residency and eventual citizenship.

The amendment, unveiled in full today, would create stricter “triggers” that would prevent previously undocumented immigrants from being eligible for green cards until the nation’s entire southern border is under surveillance and 90 percent of illegal border crossers are being apprehended.

Schumer argues that the amendment’s triggers are unreasonable and could be used to delay or even eliminate the proposed path to citizenship.

“It doesn’t create a path to citizenship in any way,” Schumer said. “It doesn’t allow one. And – finally – its cost is through the roof!”

Other Republicans who support the reform bill – including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham – have voiced concern about the Cornyn measure’s cost as well, saying that its increase of border patrol agents and implementation of biometric systems are particularly expensive.

Cornyn says his amendment appropriates the same amount for border security --  $6.5 billion -- as the Gang of Eight bill.

But earlier Wednesday, another GOP member of the Gang of Eight disputed the idea that Cornyn’s amendment is designed to bring down the legislation. “I don’t think it’s a poison pill,” Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake said at a breakfast with reporters. “He has said publicly, he said again in our lunch meeting yesterday, `If my amendment is adopted I will vote for the bill.’ He has said that on a number of occasions and I believe him.”

But Flake also said he believes Cornyn's amendment won't be adopted as written and that bill supporters are working to find areas of agreement.

Top senators also quibbled Wednesday about the procedure for voting on amendments.

Reid proposed a vote on a first raft of amendments – two from Democrats and three from Republicans – with each requiring 60 votes for passage.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa objected, saying a simple majority should suffice.

“Right out of the box, right now, just on the third day, they want to subject our amendments to a filibuster, like a 60-vote threshold,” he said. “So I have to ask: Who’s obstructing now?”

The delay in beginning amendment votes comes after Reid has repeatedly said he hopes for a final vote on the legislation by July 4.

With every hour of disagreement, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont commented dryly, that congressional vacation is pushed closer to jeopardy.

“I’d like to just have voting on something  so we can finish this,” Leahy said. “Frankly, given my choice to spend Fourth of July week in Washington, as salubrious as the weather is, or in Vermont for the Fourth of July, I’d much rather be in Vermont.”

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:34 PM EDT

The Obama administration will try to revive its push for tighter restrictions on firearms, almost two months after legislation seen as the best hope for gun control went down to defeat in the Senate.

The effort got an extra boost on Wednesday as families of children and educators killed at Newtown returned to Capitol Hill ahead of the six-month anniversary of the shootings to plead with lawmakers not to forget their loved ones.

"It's been the longest six months of my entire life, but also the shortest. Time becomes completely irrelevant in some respects," said Nicole Hockley, who lost her son, six-year-old Dylan, in the Dec. 14 shooting.

"Six months, six minutes, six years -- a marathon already," said Bill Sherlach, who lost his wife. "We really have no choice, because I'll spend the rest of my life without my wife."

They spoke during a meeting with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who spearheaded the background check compromise that failed to pass the Senate in April. 

They insist that momentum for new gun control laws hasn't faded. But Congress is largely consumed by an emerging immigration reform debate -- and Manchin couldn't say whether there would be another gun vote this year, or even before the end of this congressional session at the end of 2014.

Still, Vice President Joe Biden has vowed to keep pushing for new legislation, inviting gun violence groups to a meeting at the White House on June 17. 

“I personally haven’t given up, nor has the president,” Biden told reporters on Capitol Hill on Monday.

The administration’s renewed effort will be fought on several fronts: at the White House, on Capitol Hill, and in key states and congressional districts throughout the country.

The families also met today with House GOP leaders, whose discretion will be key in determining whether any gun proposal even comes up for a vote in the House, should a bill make it out of the Senate.

“The families have asked to meet with us,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on Wednesday ahead of the meeting. “Our hearts and souls go out to these families and the tragedy they've all been through.”

It's the first time Boehner will meet with the Newtown families.

On Thursday, the families will hold a press conference outside of the Capitol with senior lawmakers to mark the six-month anniversary of the shootings.

It’s unclear, though, whether the intervening two months since the last vote in Congress on gun control has changed the politics of the issue very much. In that vote, the Senate fell six votes short of the 60 they needed to advance a more modest, bipartisan gun control proposal that would have expanded background checks to firearms sales online and at gun shows. Gone from the package were proposed bans on assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines.

The proposal that the Senate scuttled remains broadly popular; a New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this month found that 69 percent of Americans – including 58 percent of Republicans – said that Congress should pass the expanded background check proposal if it comes up for another vote.

In the two months since the vote, proponents of gun control have sought to ratchet up the pressure on key lawmakers. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the pro-gun control group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ran ads targeting key senators like Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., for voting against the bipartisan proposal (“Manchin-Toomey”) in April.

The results have been mixed.

In Pryor’s case, he sought to turn the attack back toward his advantage, launching his own re-election campaign ad declaring his independence from “the mayor of New York City.” Ayotte became more of a lightning rod, as gun control advocates swarmed her town hall meetings during a recess, while the National Rifle Association ran ads in her state lionizing the first-term senator.

Bloomberg’s group makes up the third front on which the renewed push for gun control will be fought.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns announced Wednesday that it planned a summer bus tour that would make at least 25 stops in key states and districts across the country, with the goal of galvanizing support for new gun control proposals.

“When senators vote down a bill with such overwhelming support among the public, there is going to be a sense of outrage. And we've seen that outrage since April 17,” said John Feinblatt, an adviser to Bloomberg. “I think Americans feel as though Congress did not represent them on April 17.”

Bloomberg is also looking to target lawmakers where it maybe hurts the most: their bank accounts.

The mayor wrote Democratic donors in New York – one of the largest wellsprings of campaign donations – urging them to refuse supporting Democratic senators who had voted against the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

“It is usual practice for elected officials all over this country to make New York once of their first stops in scooping up donations for their campaigns,” Feinblatt said. “Mayor Bloomberg thought it was important that Donors in New York be made aware of votes that senators took on April 17 to deny the Manchin-Toomey bill.”

Manchin said that Bloomberg's efforts weren't as effective as they could be, though he declined to criticize the mayor's efforts. 

"I need help in going into gun regions such as West Virginia and all over this country to tell the law abiding gun owners actually what this will do for them," Manchin said. "There's going to be an election in 2014 - that's the time."

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:32 PM EDT

Just three months ago, the Republican Party establishment couldn’t have been more resolute: Achieving immigration reform is essential to the GOP’s future political viability. 

A post-election autopsy commissioned by the Republican National Committee insisted that the party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform” or else risk that the GOP would “continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

And yet, an internal tug-of-war rages between party luminaries who regard immigration reform as essential to the party’s future health and conservatives who decry the proposal beginning to make its way through Congress as “amnesty,” leaving the party apparatus largely on the sidelines thus far in the current debate.

“I think there are some Republicans that are fearful,” said Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary who helped author the RNC report. “And they'd like to be for immigration reform, but they're worried.”

These countervailing forces make for a familiar storyline, in which conservatives are pitted against party leaders – and elected Republicans stuck in between the two. How this struggle plays out could determine whether an immigration law makes its way through Congress this year.

The RNC report, which was released three months ago, was striking in its urgency – in part because as a political committee, the RNC rarely stakes out policy positions. But, as the report noted, immigration reform has become a “litmus test” among Hispanic voters, an increasingly important voting bloc that went for President Barack Obama by 44 points over Mitt Romney last fall.

But the RNC and many other instruments of Republican politics have mostly sat quietly as a bruising intraparty fight plays out on Capitol Hill.

Many other politically savvy Republicans echoed the RNC report’s language on immigration when it debuted almost three months ago.

Since then? Silence, mostly. The RNC hasn’t aired any ads or posted any videos looking to give Republican lawmakers the cover they need to support the immigration reform law now before the Senate; the RNC’s most noteworthy announcement involved hiring Jennifer Sevilla Korn to oversee Hispanic engagement.

“We are encouraged by the leadership from Republicans in the House and Senate working to fix our broken immigration system and will continue to work with Republican leaders to ensure the GOP message reaches the Hispanic community,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. “Jennifer S. Korn will be leading this grassroots effort to engage the Hispanic community at a local level including building a long-term presence in communities across the country. As we continue to strengthen our relationship with the Hispanic community, we will address many of the issues Republicans are working on including immigration, jobs, and the economy.”

Republicans are quick to note that the RNC’s endorsement of immigration reform doesn’t necessarily imply an endorsement of one proposal over another. And many are still optimistic about the prospects for an overhaul; House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told ABC on Tuesday that he expects a bill to pass Congress by the end of this year.

“We’ve come a long way in a fairly short period of time on immigration reform,” said Henry Barbour, the Republican committeeman who helped author the report. “So I think we’re in a good spot. I think that Republican members of the House, they’ll address it fairly and fully. At the end of the day, I think we’ll see legislation passed.”

“In this one area, it's important to send signals and provide encouragement for people who want to be for immigration reform but are worried that it might not be popular in all corners of the Republican base,” Fleischer added.

But indeed, in the talk radio and blogging communities that hold so much sway in the contemporary GOP, the immigration reform bill before Congress is mostly unpopular. Party elders’ arguments in favor of immigration reform have done little to silence conservative critics of immigration reform.

Similar uproar from conservatives was a primary factor in President George W. Bush’s failed immigration overhaul last decade. The question is whether the conservative grassroots can again prevail over immigration reform proponents among the party establishment.

The Senate voted 82-15, with the support of 27 Republicans, to begin debating the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” proposal on Tuesday. It’s a very open question as to how many of those Republicans will still stand behind the legislation come July 4, when the debate is slated to wrap. The number of Senate Republicans who support the final product could sway colleagues in the GOP-controlled House. A small tally of GOP-ers could worry House conservatives, while a higher number would provide House Republicans with more political cover.

Conservatives have been organized from the outset against the proposal. Heritage Action, the political group associated with the Heritage Foundation, which is now headed by conservative stalwart and former Sen. Jim DeMint, is vehemently opposed to the legislation, and a small coterie of Senate conservatives has loudly denounced the plan in floor speeches and media appearances. 

There are efforts under way, though, to help give Republicans some cover.

Susan Walsh / AP

In this March 12, 2013 file photo, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Gang of Eight, has been a leading advocate of comprehensive immigration reform to conservatives. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another longtime advocate of immigration reform, has also been outspoken about how essential reform legislation is to the GOP’s long-term health.

And conservative groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Tax Reform have taken a more prominent role in pushing immigration reform right now. The Karl Rove-linked super PAC American Crossroads even spent $100,000 on ads in favor of immigration reform this week, the first time the group has found itself endorsing a part of Obama’s policy agenda.

And Republicans for Immigration Reform, a super PAC founded by former Bush administration Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and former Romney super PAC leader Charlie Spies, will emerge from its dormancy for much of this year to help lay the groundwork for reform.

Republicans for Immigration Reform (R4IR), Spies said, would debut new polling on Thursday demonstrating support among conservatives and Republicans for immigration reform. The group has run some advertisements in South Carolina, the home state of GOP Gang of Eight member Lindsey Graham. Spies said R4IR would likely air even more advertisements targeted toward specific House districts once the Gang of Eight bill reaches the lower chamber, where conservatives are less beholden to leadership and more closely hew to the GOP’s grassroots community.

“Conservatives increasingly understand that we have a de-facto amnesty system in America. And it is going to have to be reformed,” Spies said. “Republicans can be a part of those improvements to the existing system and take credit for improving the immigration system, or they can be painted by Nancy Pelosi and other partisan Democrats as obstructionists, which is a losing proposition as we look to grow our party.”

Related:

• Senate votes to begin historic immigration reform debate
• Aiming to build opposition, foes liken immigration to 'Obamacare'

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:17 AM EDT

The filing deadline has now officially passed for the October special election to fill the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D) seat. Four Democrats and two Republicans will run.

Much attention at this point rests on the Democratic primary set for August, but Newark Mayor Cory Booker is the overwhelming favorite. Two polls released Monday – from Rutgers-Eagleton and Quinnipiac -- both showed Booker with more than 50 percent of the vote and with big leads over his Democratic primary opponents and leading Republican Steve Lonegan, the former mayor of Bogota.

Democratic Reps. Rush Holt and Frank Pallone garner just 10 percent or less. State Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver was not included in the surveys, because she filed later than the other Democrats. Quinnipiac was the only poll to test general-election match-ups, and Booker was handily ahead of Lonegan, 54 to 27 percent. (The margins between Lonegan and each of the other Democrats are narrower. Dr. Alieta Eck, a late Republican entry, isn’t included in the figures.)

Booker is far and away the best known candidate in the polls. So who are the other candidates?

Rush Holt (D)

First elected to his House seat in 1999, Holt has one of the more unique resumes in Congress. His past campaign bumper stickers read, “My Congressman is a Rocket Scientist” because he is, in fact, a physicist with multiple Jeopardy wins under his belt. Pre-politics, Holt served as the assistant director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, New Jersey’s largest center for alternative energy research. The lawmaker stresses environmental and infrastructure accomplishments, on his website, including his role in securing $150 million for the Land Water Conservation Fund and $800 million over two years for transit security improvements. He also serves on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Natural Resources, where he is the ranking member of the energy and mineral resources subcommittee, which deals in part with the nation’s long-term energy strategy. Overall, Holt brands himself as a results guy, claiming that he “studies the issues based on merit, not partisanship.” Another interesting fact: Holt’s father, also Rush Holt of West Virginia, was the youngest person elected to the U.S. Senate, securing his seat at age 29. In fact, he had to delay taking his seat in the Senate by a few months because he did not meet the age requirement. He served just one term, and was subsequently a failed congressional candidate and gubernatorial candidate five times, including twice as a Republican after switching parties.

Frank Pallone (D)

Currently serving his 13^th term in the U.S. House, Congressman Pallone brands himself as a champion in two main areas: health care and the environment. He emphasizes his progressive record a la the late Lautenberg. The underlying message of his campaign website and Senate announcement: Pallone is a known entity. Launching his bid, he said, “I believe my record of 25 years in Congress…shows I’m the best person to get the job done.” Pallone has been called a “chief architect” of the House version of the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” This May, he re-introduced a bill he authored that died in the last Congress – the Superfund Polluter Pays Act – that his website says would make “polluters, not taxpayers foot the bill for toxic clean-ups.” The Democrat is also known for an early career stance against President Bill Clinton on the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Pallone emphasizes that vote on his new campaign site as evidence that he protects American workers. National news articles at the time included the job concerns, but added that most of the “No’s” received a lot of contributions from labor groups opposed to the agreement. Per the Washington Post, Labor PACs gave Pallone $707,005 between his initial election in 1988 and 1993. Prior to Congress, Pallone served on the city council in Long Branch, N.J., and in the New Jersey state Senate.

Sheila Oliver (D)

Currently in her second term as assembly speaker in the New Jersey state legislature, Oliver has a liberal record similar to some of her opponents. She sponsored bills to raise the state’s minimum wage and tie it to the cost of living and to legalize gay marriage, according to her bio on the New Jersey Assembly site. Oliver is emphasizing the need for a woman to win the seat, which would be a first for New Jersey. Filing her petition, she said, “You know for a long time I’ve had a lot of consternation that for centuries we have had no women representing the state of New Jersey. So I am very concerned about beginning to move the process forward for women’s representation.” Prior to the state legislature, Oliver was a non-profit administrator and served on the board of education for her hometown, East Orange, N.J.

Steve Lonegan (R)

One of just two Republicans vying for Lautenberg’s seat, Lonegan is a former small-town (Bogota, N.J.) mayor, who has also made several unsuccessful congressional and gubernatorial bids. The conservative is probably best known for controversies around immigration. As Bogota’s mayor, for example, he pushed to make English the town’s official language after a McDonald’s franchise put up a billboard in Spanish there. He called the sign “divisive” and “offensive.” He later landed in legal trouble for hiring illegal immigrants to work at his home, according to the New York Times. On Tuesday, he released a statement with excerpts from a voicemail left for Sen. Jeffrey Chiesa, Gov. Chris Christie’s appointee. Lonegan urged him to oppose immigration-reform legislation because it is, he said, tantamount to amnesty. Chiesa was one of 82 senators to vote in favor of a motion to proceed to debate on immigration Tuesday, the first vote on this round of comprehensive-immigration reform. Lonegan called Booker, Pallone, Holt, and Oliver “Obama rubber stamps,” who are “all the same.” Fun fact about Lonegan: Samuel Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. “Joe the Plumber” from the 2008 presidential election, endorsed him in his last race for governor.

Alieta Eck (R)

Eck is a physician and former president of the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and is framing her bid for the Senate around her medical experience and, in particular, her opposition to “Obamacare.” In 2011, She voiced that opposition her testimony before a U.S. Senate committee. In a statement on her new campaign website, she says, “Having more physicians in the Senate who understand the health care system would make real health care reform possible.” In 2003, along with her husband, Eck founded a free clinic for the poor and uninsured in New Jersey. The political newcomer is popular with Tea Party groups.

CHICAGO -- Another Daley is a step closer to a high-profile political race.

William Daley, the son of one long-time Chicago mayor and the younger brother of another, is forming an exploratory committee as he lays the groundwork for a 2014 challenge to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.

"We need leadership that gets things done," he said in an online video released today. "The people of Illinois can't wait."

Quinn, who succeeded Rod Blagojevich in January 2009 after the scandal-tarred governor was impeached, presides over a state that has the lowest credit rating in the nation, one of the biggest unfunded public pension funds in America and owes about $7 billion in unpaid bills.

He is one of the most unpopular governors, with a disapproval rating as high as 55 percent in some polls.

In a statement, the Quinn campaign touted what it views as his accomplishments, including a statewide construction program and implementing President Obama's health-care reform in Illinois.

"The governor is focused on working hard for the people of Illinois," the said read. "There will be plenty of time for politics in the future."

Daley, who was Obama's White House chief of staff and President Bill Clinton's Commerce Secretary, may not be Quinn's only challenger. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is also mulling a race. She's a member of another prominent Illinois political family, the daughter of House Speaker Michael Madigan.

On the Republican side, State Treasurer Dan Rutherford and businessman Bruce Rauner have already announced candidacies. U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock has said he would not run.

The primary election is in March.

In an initial victory for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, the Senate on Tuesday easily passed a procedural vote to begin debate on the broad bipartisan measure, with just 15 senators -- all Republicans -- objecting.

The preliminary 82-15 vote -- which required 60 votes for passage -- offers an initial show of strength for supporters of the legislation, although some Republicans who voted for the initial procedural measure say they will not support the final product unless amendments are added to strengthen the legislation’s requirements to secure the nation’s southern border.

A short while later, a vote on the motion to proceed -- which needed just a simple majority -- passed by a similar 84-15 margin.

The votes came hours after President Barack Obama, flanked by a broad array of supporters in remarks at the White House, urged Congress to act on the legislation and warned opponents that there is “no good reason to play procedural games or engage in obstruction.”

“If you’re serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it,” Obama said.

A final vote on the legislation is not expected until before the chamber’s July 4 recess. Obama said Tuesday that he wants the bill to his desk by the end of the summer.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, an outspoken opponent of the bill, acknowledged after the vote that the bill likely has sufficient support in the upper chamber but warned that -- without changes -- it won’t survive to a White House signing ceremony.

“This bill is going to pass the Senate, but as written, this bill will not pass the House,” Cruz said.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Gang of Eight member and key GOP backer of the legislation, told reporters earlier Tuesday he believes the bill will pass out of the Senate but that it will need substantial Republican momentum to beat back opponents in the GOP-led House.

“If we get just a handful of Republicans I think it probably dies in the House, so I think it’s imperative we get close to half our conference” for a final vote, he said.

The Senate will now spend the remainder of the month debating and amending the bill, with much of the legislative oxygen being devoted to amendments that Republicans say are designed to woo more support from GOP members.

One such measure is an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that would put in place more stringent “triggers” for border security before undocumented immigrants with probationary legal status can apply for green cards.

Speaking with Cornyn at his side, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed to the Texas lawmaker’s proposed legislation as “the key amendment” that -- if adopted -- that would ensure border security to the satisfaction of Republicans.

Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill that he has been in conversations with Democratic members of the Gang of Eight about the amendment, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls “a poison pill.”

“I think if they had 60 votes to pass the bill out of the Senate, they probably wouldn't be talking to me,” Cornyn told reporters. “But they are, which tells me that they view this as a way to get out of the Senate on a bipartisan basis and give it some momentum and increase the likelihood of a bill passing in the House.”

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:14 AM EDT

Full Senate holds its first immigration vote at 2:15 pm ET… Obama makes immigration remarks four hours earlier (just his second official event on the issue, compared with as many as eight on guns)… Looking ahead to the amendment process… Not surprising a majority backs tracking phone records… Another dent in Hillary’s State Department armor?... Cook: GOP chances of an upset in MA SEN look unlikely… Primary Day in Virginia… And remembering Doug Bailey.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., flanked by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, speaks about immigration reform legislation as outlined by the Senate's bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that would create a path for the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship, in this file photo.

*** Full Senate holds its first immigration vote: This afternoon, the full U.S. Senate holds its first vote on the bipartisan immigration legislation, which seeks to bolster border security and establish a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s millions of undocumented immigrants. This vote on the motion to proceed requires 60 votes, and it’s expected to cross that threshold. But the question is whether there are potentially as many as 70 senators who support the final legislation, which would give the legislation lots of momentum, putting pressure on the GOP-controlled House of Representatives to take up the Senate version. Today’s vote COULD give us a hint. A reminder: This is just the first full Senate vote; the vote for final passage won’t take place until before the July 4 holiday. There are several moving parts associated with today’s immigration vote. Tuesday morning, President Obama -- who sees this legislation as his top second-term priority -- delivers remarks from the White House in support of immigration reform, and he’ll be joined by business, labor, and law enforcement officials who back the bill. Also today, the labor group SEIU says it’s launching a seven-figure TV ad campaign (running throughout the rest of this month) in support of the legislation. Meanwhile, per NBC’s Carrie Dann, immigration-reform opponent NumbersUSA says it will be scoring today’s procedural vote.

*** The White House’s relative reticence: According to NBC’s White House producers, Obama’s immigration speech today will be just his second official event on the issue (compared with as many as eight he’s held on gun control). But this count doesn’t include the numerous White House meetings he’s held on immigration, as well as his speech at the George W. Bush Presidential Library, where he made a big pitch for passing reform. Still, this relative reticence is by design: Obama doesn’t want to become a lightning rod in this debate, especially since the goal is now getting GOP support for the legislation. Expect his comments today to essentially be full of encouragement and praise for the bipartisan work.

*** Looking ahead to the amendment process: After today’s Senate vote, the immigration debate will turn to the amendment process, and NBC’s Kasie Hunt says there are four key areas where Republicans are trying to change the bill. The first (and most important) is border security. Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) amendment is the one to watch; there could be others coming from conservatives, including potentially from “Gang of Eight” member Marco Rubio (R-FL). Then there's benefits and taxes -- how and when do those in the green-card process have access to federal money for health care, even emergency care. Then, Hunt adds, there are questions of who can apply for status -- specifically, there's likely to be tussles over the types of crimes that would disqualify a person from applying for legalized status. And finally, there will be questions about refugee status and asylum -- prompted largely by the Boston bombing. On the Democratic side, the most closely watched amendment will be Pat Leahy’s (D-VT) that would allow immigrants to get legal status for their same-sex partners. Another issue is guns -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is considering offering amendments to restrict immigrants' ability to obtain firearms. Republicans want to steer clear of that issue entirely.

*** Not surprising a majority backs tracking telephone records: If you have been following American politics over the last 10-12 years, these new Pew/Washington Post poll numbers shouldn’t be that surprising. But they’re still instructive in this NSA surveillance story. A strong majority of Americans -- 56% -- believe tracking telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism; 41% say it’s unacceptable. Back in 2006, after reports of warrantless wiretapping during the Bush administration, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails. What’s fascinating (and also predictable at the same time) is how partisan reactions have changed. In that 2006, 75% of Republicans and just 37% of Democrats said that activity was acceptable. But in this newest poll, it’s 64% of Democrats and only 52% of Republicans who think it’s acceptable to track telephone records. This number also stood out to us: 45% believe the government SHOULD be able to monitor everyone’s email to prevent terrorism. When you think about it, that’s a pretty high figure.

*** Another dent in Hillary’s State Department armor? Just as Hillary Clinton made her Twitter debut -- stoking more speculation about her 2016 plans -- comes this story that could become an issue for her if she runs for president. NBC News has obtained documents related to ongoing investigations into allegations involving State Department personnel and at least one ambassador. A State Department memo says the ambassador "routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children." The memo also says a high-level State Department official specifically directed department investigators to "cease the investigation" into the ambassador's conduct -- just one of what another document describes as "several examples of undue influence" from top State officials. Yesterday, a State Department spokesperson would not confirm specific investigations, but said "the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct … is preposterous." Just like the Benghazi attack, this is potentially another story opponents could use to question her management of the State Department. By no means are they debilitating, but they’re dents in her armor.

*** Cook: GOP chances of an upset in MA SEN look unlikely: Tonight, Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Gabriel Gomez square off in their second debate in the special Massachusetts Senate race. Political analyst Charlie Cook takes a look at the contest. “[T]he pressure is on Gomez to register a clear win; otherwise this race may produce an outcome for the GOP as disappointing as last year’s 5-point defeat of Brown by Elizabeth Warren. With another two weeks to go, the race certainly isn’t over, but the chance of an upset looks decidedly less likely today than three or four weeks ago.”

*** Primary day in Virginia: Today’s Democratic primary day in Virginia. And while Terry McAuliffe is already the nominee in this year’s closely watched gubernatorial contest, Democrats today vote for their nominee for lieutenant governor (between Aneesh Chopra and Ralph Northam) and attorney general (Justin Fairfax vs. Mark Herring). Given that GOP Lt. Gov. nominee EW Jackson is a VERY flawed candidate, perhaps the best way to view the Chopra-Northam contest is as the Democratic gubernatorial primary for 2017. Even if Democrats lose the gubernatorial contest, it’s very likely that Democrats will win the race for lieutenant governor and the sitting LG will be the de factor frontrunner for the GOV nomination in 2017.  

*** Remembering Doug Bailey: Last but certainly not least, one of the great visionaries of the political world -- Doug Bailey -- died in his sleep early Monday morning. Doug leaves a legacy that spans decades and, well, centuries and was a mentor to many, including one of your authors. He had three distinct and separate successful careers that all had one goal: to make the American political system a little better and a little nobler. In the 60s, 70s and 80s, he was considered the leading Republican media consultant of his time and in many ways, pioneered methods on political campaigns that are now the norm today. (Perhaps his greatest accomplishment in that field was a loss in the 1976 presidential contest.) Then, in 1987, Bailey set out on a second career, one that would make him a pioneer in the world of political journalism. He, along with a Democratic counterpart, Roger Craver, founded The Presidential Campaign Hotline, which later would simply become “The Hotline.” Put it this way: If you are reading this morning email from us laying out the day in politics, you have Doug Bailey to thank for it. Many of the leading political briefings and publications today are derivatives of The Hotline. Finally, over the last 15 years, Doug set out trying to engage the public in whatever way he could think of to fix what he believed was a broken political system. Whether it was his hope to see a third political party rise up from the grass roots or his attempt to see the two political parties work as one, he simply wanted the political system to be fixed. Doug Bailey was 79, he’s survived by his wife Pat, two devoted children, Ed and Kate, and one grandchild.

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

As the Supreme Court prepares to once again weigh in on the issue of affirmative action, a record-low number of Americans support such programs, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Just 45 percent of respondents said they believe affirmative action programs are still needed to counteract the effects of discrimination against minorities, while an equal 45 percent feel the programs have gone too far and should be ended because they unfairly discriminate against whites. 

(The poll was conducted May 30-June 2 and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.)

The number of Americans supporting affirmative action has been in decline over the past two decades, down from a high of 61 percent in its favor in 1991.

Reasons for the trend range from the idea of “diversity fatigue” to what others believe is the effect of an African-American being elected president, as well as 20 years of anti-affirmative-action campaigns.

“Right now, I feel like it’s reverse discrimination,” said one poll respondent, a white, 69-year-old retired teacher from Rhode Island, who was interviewed for this story and did not wish to be identified. “I did support it at first, but, gradually, because of this reverse discrimination it’s gone too far.”

By the fast-approaching end of its term, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in a case determining whether the University of Texas admissions program violated the Constitution by using racial preferences. It’s the latest of a handful of cases the court has taken on dealing with affirmative action over the past two decades.

Not surprisingly, there is a wide divide on the issue along racial lines. Among whites polled, almost six in 10 (56 percent) oppose affirmative action. But among minorities asked, eight in 10 blacks and six in 10 Hispanics favor it.

There is also an ideological split, with 67 percent of Democrats saying the programs are still needed, compared to 22 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of Tea Party supporters. And just 39 percent of independents agree that affirmative action should be continued.

Read the poll here (.pdf)

By September 1995 -- coinciding with the Republican takeover of the House and the welfare-reform debate of the 1990s -- the number of Americans supporting affirmative action dropped to 49 percent, with 43 percent opposing it.

That's essentially where the number stood through 2010, with a brief uptick in 2000, until this June’s survey. It’s a change some think is attributable, in part, to the re-election of President Barack Obama.

“On the surface, things are very positive,” said Weldon Latham, a Washington-based attorney, who is black and advises corporations on diversity issues.

“When you see that we have an African-American president, African-American CEOs, African-American generals -- you can mention all the names -- the Colin Powells, the Barack Obamas. If you watch TV, you say, look, things have improved dramatically. When Barack Obama was elected, amazingly, everybody said it’s a post-racial America, but if you look just below the surface … at the things that are very important, like jobs -- African-American jobs and female jobs are still some percentage below what white males are.”

Kevin Brown, a law professor at Indiana University, also spoke to the possible “Obama effect.”

“Certainly, the election of Barack Obama as president has made a difference,” Brown said. “I did not believe America would elect a black president in my lifetime. There’s no question America is a much more tolerant, open society than 20, 25 years ago."

But Brown also stressed the ongoing need for programs to assist minorities. "My concern is underneath the veneer there is this separate story that the descendants of slaves are falling farther and farther to the bottom in a way that no one would recognize. The group most left behind is the group most affected by our history of racial discrimination.”

Brown has written about the “Underrepresentation of Ascendant Blacks at Selective Educational Institutions.” In other words, that American black descendants of slaves are increasingly making up fewer of those benefiting from affirmative action. Instead, he says, immigrant blacks from the Caribbean and Africa are making up bigger percentages of the blacks getting preference for elite colleges.

“In some places,” Brown said, “if you go to your elite Ivy League schools, you’re finding very few of your traditional African-Americans. They’re maybe about one-third of blacks in those schools. Unlike the president, who grew up in the U.S., you’re coming up with a lot of black immigrants. Frankly, the U.S. civil-rights struggle is not their struggle.”

And even when it comes to Obama -- to Latham’s point of there being more black leaders like the president, former Secretary of State Powell, and Attorney General Eric Holder -- Brown said, “Can I just point out -- Kenyan, Caribbean, Caribbean.”

There have also been campaigns against affirmative-action programs in the states over the last 20 years led by former University of California Regent Ward Connerly, points out Thomas J. Espenshade, a sociology professor at Princeton and co-author of “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal.”

“In a broader context,” Espenshade noted, “it is the case that an increasing number of states have done away with race considerations in public education or public employment either because of constitutional amendments or gubernatorial action.”

Affirmative action has been banned in eight states -- Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, said many view the problems of ascendancy as having less to do with race and more to do with economic status.

“The decline in support for affirmative action based on race is not surprising, as the growing divide between rich and poor has become more important to an individual's life chances than the differences between being white and black,” Kahlenberg said in an email. 

“The black/white achievement gap used to be twice as large as the rich/poor achievement gap, but today the situation is reversed, and the income achievement gap is twice as large as the racial achievement gap. A number of polls find that affirmative action based on income is far more popular than affirmative action based on skin color.”

But Brown said he believes that “misses the point."

“It’s not that people don’t have obstacles to overcome because of low socioeconomic status,” Brown said, “but race provides a different set of obstacles than socioeconomic status. It’s not an either-or. It’s really both.”

NBC’s Pete Williams contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:41 AM EDT

The targeting of conservative groups seeking special tax status had direct Washington connections and the picture emerging from the agency is one of  a slow-moving, overwhelmed bureaucracy struggling with arcane filing systems, endless meetings and spreadsheets, and unclear chains of command, according to congressional investigative documents.

The dense and arcane system has turned into intra-agency finger-pointing between the IRS central office and its much-maligned Cincinnati satellite. And it's spilled over into Congress, where lawmakers are focusing on selected portions of interviews that committees are conducting with IRS staffers as they try to ferret out just what happened at the IRS.

For example: On April 30, 2010 – three years before the current controversy came to light – a revenue agent in the Cincinnati office of the IRS received a stack of applications for tax-exempt status from Tea Party and conservative groups. The agent, Elizabeth Hofacre, began to draft lists of questions for the groups to answer, designed to make them prove they were eligible social welfare groups.

Directly helping her, she told investigators, was an IRS lawyer in Washington, D.C.

In just the last weeks, former IRS commissioner Steven Miller would tell lawmakers that "rogue" IRS agents in the Cincinnati office were responsible for the tax agency's sweeping targeting of conservative groups. That was after Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of regulating tax-exempt groups, publicly apologized for it.

The apology – and its implicit blaming of Cincinnati employees as acting alone outside of Washington’s control – "was a nuclear strike," said Hofacre, the IRS agent. "I was furious."

Staffers from two House committees interviewed Hofacre and another IRS employee, Gary Muthert, as they are working to get to the bottom of what happened at the IRS. NBC News was allowed to view transcripts of the first two interviews.

Muthert was charged with identifying the groups, while Hofacre reviewed the cases and drafted the questionnaires.

Neither is sure exactly who ordered them to begin their reviews.

"We're really just beginning," Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said last week about the investigations.

What the two do say: They were both just trying to do the jobs their Cincinnati managers told them to do, and somehow, the IRS headquarters in Washington was involved.

In Hofacre's case, it was very direct. She was assigned to draft questions for the identified groups to answer – a task she performed from April until October of 2010. All along, IRS Washington-based lawyer and tax specialist Carter Hull was helping. He sent her draft letters with suggested questions. She used them as a model, making her own edits and then sending them back to him. 

"I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on them without Carter Hull's influence or input," Hofacre told congressional investigators.

The wide-ranging questions probed the groups' activities. At one point, according to Hofacre's account, one of Hull's superiors, Steve Grodnitzky, asked that a question about the groups' contracts be broadened, to ask about contracts they might sign in the future, not just the ones already in place.

Broadly, Hofacre's account contradicts multiple senior IRS officials who have insisted to Congress that employees in the Cincinnati office were responsible for the targeting. "I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be efficient in their work," Miller, the former IRS commissioner, told Congress in May.

No proof of politics
The accounts from the two IRS agents don't allege any political motivation for the targeting. They don't suggest that the White House, Treasury Department or Obama campaign were involved in delaying the conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status.

"I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," a third IRS manager told congressional investigators, according to a letter released by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking member on the Oversight Committee. This manager identified himself as a "conservative Republican," according to the letter.

Instead, the sources of the directives remain murky. Muthert's boss in Cincinnati told him to start searching for "tea party" groups starting in March of 2010. 

"He told me that Washington, D.C. wanted some cases," Muthert explained to investigators.

Muthert started searching for groups in the IRS's byzantine document system – "before TEDS, there was EDS," he told the committee, insisting that explaining the differences between the two databases would be far too confusing for the interview. At first, he used simply the term "Tea Party." That turned up about 10 results.

As the months passed, Muthert says he broadened out his search terms. He was trying to follow his boss's instructions, and had realized, by visiting Tea Party websites online, that many of the groups had words like "912" and "patriot" in their names. Just plain "tea" didn't work, he said, because it started to bring up all of the teachers' groups.

"There weren't 5 or 10 tea parties," he said. "I noticed that there were hundreds of these things."

Ultimately, Muthert says, he sent seven cases up the chain to Washington. They were the first seven that he had identified. 

A bureaucracy overwhelmed
In August of 2010, Hofacre attended meetings to discuss the "be on the look out" order -- BOLO -- for the IRS specialists who were trying to identify Tea Party groups' applications. 

Over time, the terminology broadened. Patriots, 9/12, "I think liberty," Hofacre said, were added to the order. Until October, she said, she served as a "dumping ground" for the conservative applications. Hull stopped responding to emails outlining the questions Hofacre was sending; that delayed the groups' applications even longer.

Some of the groups called her, upset. But she had nothing to tell them. "I just kept getting the same response from Carter, they are under review, and that is what I told the taxpayer," Hofacre said. At this point, Hull was having her fax him any responses the groups were sending to her questionnaires. 

Hofacre was so frustrated that summer that she applied for another job within the IRS. By the fall, she had sent questionnaires to between 40 and 60 groups.

A few applications from liberal or progressive groups crossed her desk during that time.

"I just sent those back to the specialists or the general inventory," Hofacre said. "I was tasked with tea parties and overwhelmed with those." 

In October, Hofacre got the new job and was reassigned. It became someone else's problem.

Republicans in Congress say the scandal is bigger than Hofacre, or Muthert, or the two lawyers in Washington who they identified as being involved.

"This is not just a couple of people in one office, this is a nationwide systematic approach to targeting people who have certain political beliefs, particularly conservative beliefs,” Camp said. 

“I think this is what we're really trying to understand how far this goes.” 

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:06 PM EDT

Jonathan Ernst / Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes remarks after being honored with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington, May 1, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS ENTERTAINMENT)

Marc Bryan-Brown / AP

This image released by Women in the World shows former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at the Women in the World Conference on Friday, April 5, 2013, in New York.

Hillary Clinton made her ballyhooed debut on Twitter on Monday, launching an eponymous account on the popular social media platform.

The former secretary of state and possible presidential candidate in 2016 made public her account on Monday; it had been established earlier, but was restricted to followers who requested access. And to put to rest any doubts about the true proprietor of the account, Twitter “verified” Clinton’s handle shortly after it went public, signifying that the account actually belongs to the former first lady.

In her inaugural tweet, Clinton avoided some of the thorny political issues of the day in favor of something more lighthearted, referencing the popular “Texts from Hillary” tumblr created by two comedians.

Clinton so far follows only four accounts: those of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, his global initiative and foundation, and daughter Chelsea Clinton. The former secretary of state’s official biography on the account also offered an intriguing ellipsis amid an already-established fervor about her future plans:

Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD...

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:19 PM EDT