The top Democratic drafter of immigration legislation was optimistic Thursday that Republicans will support the “good, strong  proposal” to reform the nation’s immigration system.

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who joined Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and six other lawmakers to craft the bipartisan bill, also acknowledged that he “worries” about how the group will resolve the question of whether LGBT couples should have the same protections as hetereosexual spouses in the final legislation.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left, confers with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as the Senate Judiciary Committee meets on immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has proposed amendments that would incorporate the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) – which would allow the foreign-born partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual U.S. citizens to apply for green card status – into the legislation. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight have made clear that they cannot support the bill if that measure is included, although it’s not yet clear at what point it might come up for a vote.  

“This one is something, you know, I worry about all the time,” Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill, saying that the issue keeps him awake at night even though he’s a “good sleeper.”

“Our four Democratic colleagues – including myself – believe that this is not just another issue but an issue of discrimination and so how we resolve this remains to be seen,” he added.

Schumer would not say if he would vote for the amendment if Leahy introduces it.

“I would like very much to see it in the bill,” he said. “But we have to have a bill that has support to get UAFA passed. That's the conundrum. because if there's no bill, there's no UAFA either."

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 2:31 PM EDT

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is asking the White House and State Department to hand over emails related to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, which House committees were able to see, but not keep or share, during their investigation into the response to the attack.

"Last I remember, the president said, and I'll quote, 'Would be happy to cooperate with the Congress in any way the Congress wants,'" Boehner said. "Well, this is his chance to show his cooperation so that we can get to the truth of what happened in Benghazi."

Boehner is asking for two sets of emails, both of which are related to whether the White House tried to change the initial characterization of the attack in Benghazi from a potential terrorist attack at the hands of Islamic radicalists to a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Islam YouTube video.

The emails, according to Boehner, show a senior State Department official telling her superiors that the Libyan ambassador said the attack "was conducted by Islamic terrorists." This email was sent the day after the attack, which was days before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said on Meet the Press and other Sunday news shows that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration.

The second set of emails, Boehner said, were between the White House and State Department officials, where they "insisted on removing all references to the terrorist attack to protect the State Department for providing inadequate security."

Asked if he thought the White House was lying about the response to the attack, Boehner said, "You can characterize it any way you want, but somebody clearly decided they didn't like the references to Islamic terrorism and made changes in this document."

Boehner's comments come after an emotional House committee hearing Wednesday into the Obama administration’s response to the attack, in which Gregory Hicks -- the former deputy chief of mission in Libya for the United States and the No. 2 diplomat there -- provided testimony saying he was "stunned" when the Obama administration was still claiming the attack was related to the viral anti-Islam video when they had been told otherwise.

"My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed," Hicks told the committee Wednesday when he was asked about Rice's comments on the talk shows. 

Hicks told the committee he asked Undersecretary of State Beth Jones after Rice's interviews why they were saying "there was a demonstration when the embassy had reported only an attack."

Hicks said Jones answered by saying, "I don't know," but "the sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning."

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 12:56 PM EDT

GOP shifts its focus to Hillary…  Beyond  the politics of yesterday’s Be nghazi hearing…  Deep in the heart of Texas: Obama heads to Austin, TX to talk jobs, manufacturing, and technology at 2:05 pm ET and 5:40 pm ET… Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate in 2012 than whites did… The editing of the Senate immigration bill begins… GOP brand -- is it struggling or improving? Some mixed numbers…  A Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate... And Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Dems have to defend to keep their Senate majority.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

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

*** GOP shifts its focus to Hillary: Wednesday’s congressional hearing probing last year’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi revealed this political development: Key parts of the conservative movement are turning their attention from President Obama to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “I find it stunning that four and a half months after the attack, Secretary Clinton still has the gall to say it wasn’t us,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said at yesterday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “Tell me, who is Cheryl Mills?... She is the fixture for the secretary of state; she is as close as you can get to Secretary Clinton.” In addition, for the first time since Feb. 2008 (when Obama overtook Hillary in the Democratic presidential contest), Republican groups inundated our inboxes with emails about Clinton. The GOP oppo organization American Rising: “Benghazi Hearing Raises Serious Questions About Clinton.” The Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads: “Hicks told Clinton at 2am it was terrorism.” Here was Citizens United’s David Bossie (who was behind the “Hillary: The Movie”): “The Need For A Select Committee Is More Evident Than Ever.” And Drudge’s front page for most of yesterday looked like a time warp to when the Clintons were the constant focus of conservative attacks.

EDITOR'S NOTE: NBC's Lisa Myers reports that Hicks never told Clinton at 2 am that the attack was terrorism. He said in his testimony that he had previously told that to the State Department and said it was not necessary to say it again. "I had already reported that the attack was -- had commenced and that twitter feeds were asserting that Ansar Sharia was responsible for the attack," former Benghazi Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks told Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Wednesday during testimony. Issa asked, "You didn't have that discussion with her only because it was assumed that, since you had already reported that the cause of the attack was essentially Islamic extremists, some of them linked to al- Qaida?" Hicks responded, "Yes." Myers followed up with Hicks' attorney who affirmed that Hicks did not tell Clinton personally that this was a terrorist attack.

*** But underneath the politics: Before wiping away yesterday as entirely a political exercise (and a LARGE part of yesterday had the feel of politics), don’t overlook what was discovered and what is clearly a very credible whistleblower in Greg Hicks. Ironically, what yesterday’s House hearing “revealed” was something that was already uncovered by the Pickering-Mullen report on Benghazi: systemic mistakes at the State Department when it comes to the issue of diplomatic security. The “coverup” charges appear to be an overreach, but what’s not an overreach is the focus on the failures at State and the apparent attempt by some at the White House to help State buy time before having the fingers pointed at its failings in the initial hours and days of the attack. And this happened on Clinton’s watch, pure and simple. If she is going to be running for president, her time atState is going to be an issue -- the good, the bad and the ugly. And it doesn’t take a political media genius to use Hicks’ description of his phone call back to State and resurrect Clinton’s famous 3:00 am phone call TV spot. Benghazi probably won’t haunt Clinton in 2016 in a big way, but it’s not going away, either.

*** The “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back: Yet as Democrats prepare for Hillary’spossible political comeback, so are Republicans and conservatives. Consequently, the GOP’s shift in focus shouldn’t be surprising, especially with 2016 on the horizon. But what’s striking is how sudden the transition seemed yesterday. Also striking is that it comes at a time when Clinton is enjoying her highest polling numbers, even among Republicans. In the April NBC/WSJ poll, 56% of respondents had a favorable view of her, including 23% of Republicans. (Compare that with Obama’s 8% among GOP respondents in the same poll.) Make no mistake: That Republican number is going to change for Clinton if she runs for president. So mark May 8, 2013 on your political calendars. That’s the date when Republican Party returned to what was its favorite pastime for a good part of the last 16 years (from 1992 to 2008): going after the Clintons. Folks, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back…

*** Deep in the heart of Texas: Turning from yesterday’s Benghazi hearing to today’s top political event… President Obama heads to Austin, TX to kick off his new “Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour.” Per a White House official, the president today will announce launching a promise he made in his State of the Union to establish “three new Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, which are partnerships among business, universities and community colleges, and government to develop and building manufacturing technology.” Obama also will call upon Congress “to take action on his proposal to create a one-time $1 billion investment to create a network of 15 manufacturing innovation institutes across the country.” As the AP wrote earlier this week, “President Barack Obama is launching a series of quick jaunts around the country to remind Americans he’s still got jobs and the economy on his mind.” As our own recent NBC/WSJ poll showed, the public seems frustrated that Washington isn’t focused on the economy anymore. The White House is attempting to respond to that. We’ll see if they can sustain the effort -- something they’ve been unable to do before. Here’s Obama’s schedule today in Austin: He delivers remarks at Manor New Technology High School at 2:05 pm ET, and then he speaks at Applied Materials Inc. at 5:40 pm ET. 

*** Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate than whites did in ‘12: With Obama today in Texas -- where whites make up a minority of all residents -- perhaps it’s only fitting to relay this U.S. Census data from 2012: “About two in three eligible blacks (66.2 percent) voted in the 2012 presidential election, higher than the 64.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites who did so… This marks the first time that blacks have voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census Bureau started publishing statistics on voting by the eligible citizen population in 1996.” The New York Times has more on this data: “The overall turnout rate nationwide was 61.8 percent in 2012, a decline from 63.6 percent four years earlier. Researchers cautioned that their estimates might overstate how many people voted across all categories, because they are based on surveys in which people were asked whether they had voted — a ‘socially desirable’ activity. Some researchers cautioned against treating 2012 as a watershed moment for the black vote. For example, Michael P. McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University — using the same data but with a slightly different calculation — determined that black voters first turned out at a higher rate than whites in 2008.”

*** Let the editing of the immigration bill begin! The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins marking up the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration bill. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “With the Gang of Eight’s immigration measure coming under the legislative magnifying glass this week, senators on a key committee are sharpening their red pencils in preparation to edit the 844-page bill. The 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have proposed 300 amendments to the legislation, ranging from protections for gay couples, to border-security fixes, to efforts to dismantle the bill’s central goal of creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” More Dann: “While observers do not expect that the bill willundergo dramatic changes in the committee process -- with bipartisan proponents of reform on the panel likely to stick together to resist substantial changes to their core legislation -- the high-profile debate is sure to elevate the often-dull ‘markup’ process to must-see TV for anyone with a dog in the immigration fight.”

*** GOP brand -- is it still struggling or improving? After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee embarked on a soul-searching mission to see what was wrong and deliver recommendations for how to fix them. The result was a 97-page reportwith suggestions on issues ranging from women, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, gays, and young voters. Yet beyond that report – and besides about half of the Republican Party working to pass comprehensive immigration reform – how is that re-branding effort going? Well, there are mixed numbers. Yesterday, our NBC/Marist poll found the Republican Party’s fav/unfav rating at 37%-53% among registered voters in Virginia – a state Republicans need to win in future presidential contests. Also yesterday, a Pew poll found respondents blaming Republicans by 20 points (42%-22%) for failing to better work with President Obama on key issues. On the other hand, the Pew poll showed the Republican Party either even or slightly ahead of Democrats on top issues like guns (GOP 42%, Dems 39%), the economy (GOP 42%, Dems 38%), and immigration (GOP 38%, Dems 38%).

*** Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate: So the first Democrat has announced he’s running in South Dakota’s open Senate contest: two-time Housecandidate Rick Weiland. The Hill: “According to the Argus Leader, Weiland already has the support of his former boss, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D). The two spoke prior to Weiland's announcement and, Daschle said, ‘I encouraged him with great enthusiasm.’” Weiland told the paper that he had also spoken with U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson (D) — son of retiring Sen. Tim Johnson (D) — before announcing his plans, and Johnson had indicated he was unlikely to enter the race. ‘He’s focused on his job. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t feel that Brendan (wasn’t) going to get into this race,’ Weiland said.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says that this DOES NOT mean that former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) is passing on the race. But if Weiland is the only Dem candidate, it’s hard to think that Democrats will have a puncher’s chance in South Dakota in 2014.

*** Democrats on defense: And speaking of the 2014 Senate races, MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Democrats have to defend to hold on to the majority.

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

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 9:06 AM EDT

In another finding from the new NBC News/Marist poll, 55 percent of Virginia residents say they want stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus 36 percent who want them left the same.

Reflecting Virginia's status as a key national swing state -- President Obama twice won it by the same margin he won the national popular vote -- those numbers are virtually identical to the national ones from the April NBC/WSJ poll.

But there are fascinating political, demographic and geographic differences inside these numbers.

Eighty-two percent of Democrats in Virginia want stricter gun laws, compared with 56 percent of independents and just 29 percent of Republicans.

What's more, only 30 percent of gun owners and 38 percent of those living in households with guns favor stricter gun laws, suggesting a deep divide on this issue between gun owners and non-gun owners.

But that's not the only split: 68 percent of women in the state want stricter gun laws, versus just 41 percent of men who do.

And there's geography. A whopping 70 percent of those living in the Northern Virginian suburbs just outside of Washington, D.C., support stricter gun laws. That's compared with the Northern Virginian exurbs (49 percent), the central and western part of the state (49 percent), the Richmond area (49 percent), and the Tidewater region (59 percent).

The NBC/Marist poll was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,218 adults in Virginia, and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 2.8 percentage points.

In a day of congressional testimony that once again found the Obama administration under fire, a trio of whistleblowers expressed frustration toward the government’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 assault against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and its subsequent investigation into that incident.

The diplomatic officials appeared on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to describe a hasty and chaotic response to the attack, which left four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – dead.

The witnesses said that the government was poorly prepared to weather the attack and was hesitant to respond, also contending that a subsequent review of the incident ordered by the State Department came up woefully short.

The testimony included new details from Gregory Hicks, a career foreign service officer who served as the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks.

He painstakingly recounted frenetic efforts to communicate between besieged individuals in Benghazi, and the governments of Libya and the United States. And he relayed the frustration of special forces who were told to stand down in Tripoli – Hicks said he did not know who gave the order – from deploying to Benghazi.

“They were furious,” Hicks told lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I will quote Lt. Col. Gibson. He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”

IN DEPTH: Official: US Special Forces team wasn't allowed to fly to Benghazi during attack

Hicks joined two other witnesses in a hearing driven primarily by Republicans, who have zealously pursued the Benghazi incident based on suspicions that President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been caught flat-footed by the attack, or worse, orchestrated a cover-up about the attack to benefit the president’s re-election bid.

At no point did Hicks or his fellow witnesses – Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya – accuse the president or Clinton of having halted forces that might have assisted besieged diplomats in Benghazi. Democrats repeatedly pointed to testimony suggesting that reinforcements would have not have arrived in time, anyway.

But Republicans seized on several morsels of information, in particular Hicks’s incredulity toward the administration’s initial explanation, voiced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of protests related to an anti-Islamic video.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said of his reaction to Rice’s appearances on a series of Sunday talk shows following the attack. He further testified that there were no indications of protests in Libya, and that at no time did they suspect that the Benghazi attack was related to protests.

Republicans also homed in on suggestions by Hicks that a top Clinton aide had reacted angrily when Hicks agreed to speak privately with GOP investigators looking into the Benghazi attack. Hicks said that Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, called him “upset” about his conversation with the GOP lawmakers.

The witnesses also expressed their misgivings about the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) findings in a subsequent investigation into the government’s response to the attacks. The ARB, the witnesses said, failed to interview senior enough leaders in the State Department.

The testimony prompted pointed responses from Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who co-authored the ARB, and allies of Clinton, the popular former secretary of state who’s seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

“I believe the Accountability Review Board did its work well,” Pickering, a coauthor of the report, said Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. “I think the notion, quote, of ‘a cover-up’ has the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.”

And Philippe Reines, a senior aide to Clinton, told NBC News that accusations that Mills interfered in an investigation into Benghazi “completely and utterly false.”

Indeed, Democrats headed into the hearing warning against politicization of the Benghazi incident.

“I am not questioning the motives of our witnesses,” said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, at the outset of the hearings. “I am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes.”

His admonition didn’t stop many Republicans from plowing ahead with their questions.

“It's one of great mysteries,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, of questions as to why terror response forces were not ordered into action on Sept. 11. “Here we have this expertise, we've invested heavily in it, they tabletop it, they understand it, this is exactly what they train for and they were never asked to go into action.”

But while many Republicans appeared eager to keep Benghazi alive as a political issue, not all Republicans seemed as concerned about the issue, or the Obama administration’s forthcoming.

“I’ve been able to read all the cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,” said Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on MSNBC. “I’m fairly satisfied.”

This story was originally published on Wed May 8, 2013 11:02 AM EDT

NBC/Marist poll shows it’s neck and neck in Virginia… McAuliffe 43%, Cuccinelli 41% among registered voters… Cuccinelli 45%, McAuliffe 42% among likely voters… Good news for McAuliffe: It’s early, he has room to grow, and the GOP’s fav/unfav is way upside down in the state… The bad news for him: The poll doesn’t show Cuccinelli with an ideological problem just yet… Voters are relatively down on the VA GOV field, but are upbeat about the state’s direction… Looking ahead to 2016 in Virginia: Hillary tops McDonnell, while McDonnell beats Biden… Separate NBC/Marist poll shows Christie crushing Buono, 60%-28% among registered New Jersey voters… Looking ahead to 2016, Hillary is ahead of Christie, but the New Jersey governor leads Biden… From Appalachian Trail to Comeback Trail: Sanford beats Colbert Busch, 54%-45%... And House committee holds Benghazi hearing at 11:30 am ET.

*** Neck and neck in Virginia: Six months out until Virginia’s gubernatorial contest, Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli are locked in a close contest, according to a new NBC News/Marist poll. McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, gets the support of 43% of registered voters and Cuccinelli, the state’s attorney general, gets 41%; 16% say they are undecided. That’s a different result from a recent Washington Post poll of the race, which had the Republican leading by five percentage points. But a deeper look in this NBC/Marist survey, and it’s clear Cuccinelli has a slight advantage. It starts with intensity: 53% of Cuccinelli backers strongly support him, versus 47% who express similar support for McAuliffe. What’s more, among likely voters -- not always the best way to measure a contest this far out -- Cuccinelli has a slight edge over McAuliffe, 45%-42%. The race also features a clear gender gap, with McAuliffe leading among female registered voters (50%-34%) and Cuccinelli ahead with men (49%-34%).

Patrick Kane / AP

Ken Cuccinelli, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia and Virginia attorney general, speaks during the 65th Annual Shad Planking Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at the Wakefield Sportsmen's Club in Wakefield, Va.

*** Good news, bad news: The good news for McAuliffe is that he has plenty of room to grow (44% of voters say they’re unsure/never heard of him, compared with 32% who say that about Cuccinelli). And the Republican Party is a potential drag for Cuccinelli: The GOP has a 37%-53% fav/unfav rating in the state, versus the Democratic Party’s 44%-46% score. Yet so far, before any negative advertising begins, the poll doesn’t show the party dragging Cuccinelli down -- his fav/unfav is 42%-27%. In addition, despite what some opinion leaders might believe, Cuccinelli doesn’t have an ideological problem right now, either. Per the poll, 27% say he’s too conservative, but a plurality of 39% think his ideology is just right. By comparison, 28% see McAuliffe as too liberal, and 33% say he’s just right. And the two men essentially run even on candidate-quality questions, although Cuccinelli has a slight edge on some of them, including ones where Democrats usually outperform Republicans.

-- Who better understands people like yourself? (Cuccinelli 34%, McAuliffe 30%.)
-- Who do you trust more to do what’s best for Virginia? (Cuccinelli 39%, McAuliffe 33%.)
-- Who is closer to you on social issues? (Cuccinelli 33%, McAuliffe 31%.)
-- Who cares more about the middle class? (McAuliffe 31%, Cuccinelli 30%.)
-- Who shares your values? (Cuccinelli 35%, McAuliffe 29%.)

*** Down on the gubernatorial field but upbeat on the state’s direction: Strikingly (and perhaps not surprisingly), only 52% say they are satisfied with the field of gubernatorial candidates in Virginia. That’s compared with 61% who say that it in New Jersey (more on that gubernatorial contest down below). That said, all the state’s politicians are pretty popular. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s approval rating is at 61% (what scandal?); Cuccinelli’s approval rating as attorney general is at 51%; and President Obama’s approval in the state is at an equal 51%. What’s more, if McDonnell were allowed to run for re-election, he’d lead McAuliffe by 15 points, 51%-36%. And a whopping 61% believe the state is headed in the right direction. Bottom line: The state is in good shape, and the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe contest could largely come down to which candidate can do a better job of selling that he would follow the Warner-Kaine-McDonnell path -- the conservative attorney general or the former DNC chair? It’s clear voters don’t really want change. It’s why when you look at this survey, everything points to the GOP holding the slight advantage as the party in power.

*** Looking ahead to 2016: And our NBC/Marist poll has some fun 2016 numbers to chew on when it comes to Virginia. In a hypothetical matchup, Hillary Clinton leads McDonnell in the state by 11 points, 52%-41%. Let those numbers sink in -- despite McDonnell’s 61% approval rating, he trails Clinton by double digits. However, in a hypothetical contest against Vice President Biden, McDonnell leads, 49%-42%. That said, nearly six-in-10 (58%) don’t want McDonnell to run for president. The NBC/Marist poll of Virginia was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,095 registered voters (margin of error of plus-minus 3.0 percentage points) and 692 likely voters (plus-minus 3.7 percentage points).

*** In New Jersey, Christie is crushing his Dem opponent: In this year’s other gubernatorial contest -- in New Jersey -- Republican Gov. Chris Christie leads his Democratic challenger Barbara Buono by more than 30 points among registered voters, 60%-28%, according to a separate NBC/Marist poll. Strikingly, 42% of Obama voters are supporting the incumbent governor. What’s more, 69% approve of Christie’s job performance, and 82% back his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Meanwhile, 56% of registered voters approve of President Obama’s job in the state, and 46% approve of Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) job.

*** Christie and his party, and Christie and 2016: The poll also explains why Christie is disagreeing with his national party some of the time. The GOP’s fav/unfav in the survey is 34%-59%, versus the Democratic Party’s 50%- 43% score. Yet despite Christie’s sterling numbers in this political environment, Hillary Clinton tops him in a hypothetical 2016 contest in New Jersey, 52%-41%. But Christie beats Biden by pretty much the same margin, 51%-40%. That said, 55% of registered voters in New Jersey don’t want their governor to run for president. The NBC/Marist poll of New Jersey was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,080 registered voters, and it has margin of error of plus-minus 3.0 percentage points.

*** From Appalachian Trail to Comeback Trail: Turning from future contests to last night’s contest, former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) beat Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D) in the special congressional election in South Carolina, 54%-45%.. MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor put it well: Sanford’s political career since ’09 has had plenty of ups and down -- “more ups and down than the mountains of the Appalachian Trail.” And his victory last night represented one of the ups. Interestingly, Sanford now comes to Congress owing nobody, and he has a bully pulpit at his disposal if he wants to use it. Yet the biggest takeaway from last night is that in today’s political climate, ideology trumps all. You could be a disgraced politician, and you could have been fined for breaking state ethics rules. But as long as you belong to the right political party in your state or district, you’re likely going to win. That said, Democrats are certainly trying to use this silver lining after their defeat: “House Republicans’ outreach to women voters now has Mark Sanford as the face. Republicans now have to defend him and stand with him until Election Day,” DCCC Chair Steve Israel said in a statement last night.

*** House committee holds Benghazi hearing: The final story we’re watching is today’s Benghazi hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which takes place at 11:30 am ET. The Washington Post: “Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year’s deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.”

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

Ken Cuccinelli, Republicans’ candidate for governor in Virginia, unveiled a major new tax plan on Tuesday, and it very much resembles proposals by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans from over the past year.

Cuccinelli debuted a new plan that would cut about $1.4 billion in taxes, namely by making major reductions to the state’s personal income and corporate tax rates. The Virginia attorney general’s plan would cut the personal income tax rate to 5 percent (down from 5.75 percent) and reduce the corporate tax rate to 4 percent (from 6 percent).

Cuccinelli sold his “Economic Growth and Virginia Jobs Plan” as a way to not only cap government spending in Virginia, but to also ease the burden on Virginia taxpayers and encourage new business investment.

Of course, it’s hardly unusual to hear a high-profile Republican candidate for office call for a regimen of tax cuts during the height of campaigns. But Cuccinelli’s similarities to many contemporary Republicans extends to the way in which he would finance the cost of the tax cuts, as well.

Per the website for Cuccinelli’s plan, the attorney general would help offset the $1.4 billion price tag for his tax cuts by indentifying and eliminating “outdated exemptions and loopholes that promote crony capitalism.”

Steve Helber / Steve Helber / AP file photo

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gestures as he talks about the Supreme Court decision on the Health Care law during a press conference Thursday, June 28, 2012 in Richmond, Va.

That’s an approach remarkably similar to the kind preferred by Romney during his presidential campaign last year, and subsequently by congressional Republicans during their negotiations with President Barack Obama over the automatic tax hikes that almost took effect this year as part of the “fiscal cliff.”

Romney and the GOP lawmakers each largely declined to specify the exact loopholes and deductions they would target as part of their reforms. Because of the few details about the specifics of their plans, it made it difficult for analysts to account for the exact price tag of their tax proposals. Moreover, in the case of Romney, he was left vulnerable to charges that his plan would actually result in higher taxes for many middle class Americans, since if some of the costliest tax deductions – for instance, the home mortgage interest deduction – were eliminated, it would disproportionately affect middle class households.

A spokeswoman for Cuccinelli said that a task force called for by the plan would be put in charge of adding greater detail about which exemptions the gubernatorial candidate would eliminate to meet his target.

But in a campaign against Democrat Terry McAuliffe that has already become a murky battle of volleying characterizations about the other candidate and his proposals, it’s not hard to imagine the Cuccinelli plan becoming a ripe target for McAuliffe, unless more meat is added to the plan’s bones.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 3:27 PM EDT

HOUSTON -- At this weekend's National Rifle Association Convention, Carrie Bradshaw met Annie Oakley.

On display in the 9-acre firearms expo alongside Civil War-era antique guns, black AR-15 rifles and camouflage-patterned hunting gear? Pink rifles and hand guns, "Concealed Carrie" purses with hidden handgun pockets, and "Flashbang" holsters that attach to the front or side of a bra.

"We kinda started this because we didn't want women to have to dress like a man to be able to carry a gun," said Taylor Johnston, a Flashbang Holsters sales representative. "We want them to look feminine, look good, and still feel safe.

Leslie Deets modeled her concealed carry purses on high-end designers.

"It looks like a Coach bag," she said, adding that she named her "Concealed Carrie" company after the leading character in HBO’s "Sex and the City" because "Leslie just didn't have the same ring to it."

Retail options aside, the NRA is stepping up its outreach to women after facing criticism in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings that killed 20 elementary school children and 6 adults in December. At the convention, they offered a luncheon, cocktail hour and pistol shooting course just for women.

In February, they hired Natalie Foster -- who founded the blog "Girls Guide to Guns" -- to assist with NRAWomen.tv, a website promoting ways to “explore, connect, celebrate and unite with the women of the NRA.” Sections include “Armed & Fabulous,” and “Refuse to be a Victim.”

"The NRA is definitely making an effort to really let our voices be heard," Foster said.

Adrees Latif / Reuters

A pink assault rifle hangs among others at an exhibit booth at the George R. Brown convention center, the site for the NRA annual meeting in Houston on May 5, 2013.

There's a political motive: The GOP is concerned about wooing female voters, and women overwhelmingly favor stricter gun laws. An April NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 65 percent of women favor more restrictions, compared to just 44 percent of men. Among women with children living at home, support runs even higher.

That's an overwhelming gender gap that could cause a problem for the NRA. The group claims 5 million members, but just a fraction of them are women. Foster said the NRA has a goal of reaching 500,000 women members by 2014 -- so right now, women make up less than 10 percent of the organization. More than half of the electorate, of course, are women.

The gun lobby helped defeat a Senate gun bill that would have expanded background checks to cover all commercial gun sales -- a less aggressive measure than banning assault weapons and a policy that polls show most Americans support.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre drove the convention with aggressive rhetoric on that issue -- he said that President Barack Obama's background check bill "ordered the law-abiding to participate in a maze of regulation that could criminalize lawful firearms transactions and potentially create a massive government list of every gun-owning citizen in the country."

But Foster took a notably softer tone in her interview with NBC News.

"When it comes to expanding background checks, we all want people to be safer. These laws that have been proposed recently have not been effective to that end, unfortunately," Foster said. "We all want people to be safer, we all want to protect our children. That is absolutely critical in our society."

From the beginning of the post-Newtown focus on gun control, Republicans -- with behind-the-scenes advice from groups like the NRA -- have put women front and center in their fight against new restrictions. At the first major hearing on gun control after Newtown, Republicans invited Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women's Forum to testify -- and she told the committee stories about women who used guns to protect themselves.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., underscored the point, arguing that women need high capacity magazines to appropriately defend themselves.

"My basic premise is that one bullet in the hand of a mentally unstable person or a convicted felon is one too many. Six bullets in the hands of a mother protecting her twin 9-year-olds may not be enough," he said.

That, in turn, drew a response from Vice President Joe Biden, who told a Google hangout he would advise his wife to use a shotgun, instead.

"You don't need an AR-15," he said. "Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun."

Biden is continuing to push for new gun control laws. Supporting him are groups like Moms Demand Action, which had members protesting the NRA Convention. They argue that women want more restrictions, and are planning a week of activism surrounding the upcoming Mother's Day holiday.

"I think every mother knows where she was when she heard about Newtown," said Michelle Green, who heads the Houston chapter. "It resonated so much and mothers want to take care of their children."

Related stories:

• 'Stand and fight': NRA convention gets call to arms for 2014 election
• Republican politicians pay tribute to NRA clout at annual meeting

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 12:27 PM EDT

The “Seinfeld” special election in SC… Sanford vs. Colbert Busch is entertaining, but it means absolutely nothing for 2014 or 2016… What will decide the close race: GOP and African-American turnout… Polls close at 7:00 pm ET… A sign for 2016? Chris Christie has weight surgery… When will the budget negotiations truly begin?... Republicans vs. Republicans on immigration… Democrats vs. Democrats on guns… And Benghazi surfaces again.

*** The “Seinfeld” special election: On the one hand, you couldn’t dream of a more entertaining and colorful special congressional election featuring a disgraced politician (Republican former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford) and the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert (Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch). On the other hand, it’s a race that appears to signify, well, nothing, especially as it relates to 2014 and 2016. If Sanford wins -- in a district where Mitt Romney beat President Obama by 18 percentage points, 58%-40% -- it will be due simply to the district’s GOP tilt. And if Colbert Bush wins, it will be due simply to Sanford’s flaws and past baggage. As political observer Charlie Cook writes, “If Sanford wins by any kind of margin, it means that Republican voters simply held their noses and voted for him anyway. If Colbert Busch wins, it most likely means that a lot of Republicans chose to stay home rather than vote for either a candidate whom they thoroughly disapprove of or one with whom they thoroughly disagree.” Folks, this is the “Seinfeld” special election: It’s entertaining as heck, but it means absolutely nothing.

*** The two factors to watch: That said, the toss-up election hinges on two things. One, do Republicans and conservative voters turn out? If they do, Sanford is going to win; if they don’t, he’ll lose. Two, do African-American voters show up? “In the 2010 general election, African-American participation was about 18%. If it's that strong Tuesday, Colbert-Bush may win,” longtime GOP political consultant Richard Quinn told MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor. Polls close at 7:00 pm ET, and the congressional contest is to replace Republican Tim Scott, whom Gov. Nikki Haley (R) appointed to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford makes a point to the moderators during a debate with Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in Charleston, S.C. April 29, 2013.

*** Sanford’s ups and downs: As MSNBC’s Taylor points out, Sanford’s political career “has had more ups and downs than the mountains of the Appalachian Trail.” Just consider: He was a one-time conservative star (and potential 2012 presidential candidate) bucking the Obama administration on the stimulus. Then he disappeared from the state in 2009, telling his staff he was hiking the Appalachian Trail -- only to be discovered that he was in Argentina with his mistress, whom he later called his “soul mate.” Sanford left office after paying an ethics fine for state travel. But a year later, his protégé -- Nikki Haley -- became governor. Then this year in 2013, he ran for his old House seat, winning the GOP run-off for the nomination. Afterwards, more adversity surfaced: An AP report showed that his ex-wife, Jenny Sanford, accused him of trespassing. Now? He finds himself in a toss-up contest. Later tonight, we’ll find out if Sanford truly revived his political career or if it’s officially over.

*** Christie weighing his options? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who’s  up for re-election this year, told the New York Post that he secretly had "lap-band stomach surgery" to lose weight. From the article: "He told The Post he was thinking of his four kids and how it was time to start improving his health when he decided to have the procedure. 'I've struggled with this issue for 20 years,' he said. 'For me, this is about turning 50 and looking at my children and wanting to be there for them.'  He also insisted that, contrary to what observers may say, the effort to slim down was not motivated by thoughts of a presidential bid. 'It's so much more important than that,' he said." The Post adds that Christie checked into a surgery center on Feb. 16 -- under a false name -- to undergo the procedure.  If this isn’t a sign he’s thinking about running for president, we don’t know what is. Remember, Christie had previously said that his health was pretty good… In fact, he called himself one of the healthiest fat guys in the country. So if this is for health reasons, then he wasn’t totally forthright before. For what it’s worth, we know the issue of his weight has been discussed with him by supporters and consultants as a political issue, and that it’s something he needed to deal with in some form if he ever did decide to run for national office.

*** When will the budget negotiations truly begin? Yesterday, there were two interesting moving parts as it relates to budget debate. The first: President Obama golfed with two Senate Republicans (retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Bob Corker) who are viewed as POTENTIAL partners on a possible budget deal. The second development: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, frustrated by Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) objection to go to a House-Senate conference on the budget, called the freshman senator “a schoolyard bully,” Politico reports. “‘My friend from Texas is like the schoolyard bully,’ Reid said. ‘He pushes everybody around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but changes the rules. That way no one wins except the bully who tries to indicate to people he has won. We’re asking Republicans to play by the rules and let us go to conference.’” And these two moving parts raise this question: When do the budget negotiations, if they’re ever going to happen, begin? At a conference committee? (Republicans, despite their demand for regular order, appear to be resisting that. Not only on the Senate side, but House Republicans haven’t exactly been aggressive in trying to get the conference started.) So does that mean there will be formal talks outside of GOP leadership? That’s the White House hope. They have targeted the Georgia and Tennessee GOP senators (Isakson, Chambliss, Corker and Alexander) as credible negotiating partners. If the negotiations are going to occur, they need to start taking place soon. It’s now May.  

*** Republicans vs. Republicans on immigration: Immigration has become a political battle … solely on the right. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “A new study from the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates that granting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will cost US taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector co-authored the long-anticipated study, which is sure to be cited frequently by foes of the immigration reform effort as lawmakers take up legislation to overhaul the nation’s system. But the study also drew swift criticism from Republicans supporting the reform effort, who called the Heritage Foundation's estimate politicized, exaggerated and flawed in its methodology.” In fact, check out this comment from former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R): “The Heritage Foundation document is a political document; it’s not a very serious analysis… This study is designed to try to scare conservative Republicans into thinking the cost here is going to be so gigantic that you can’t possibly be for it.”

*** Democrats vs. Democrats on guns: Is Mayors Against Illegal Guns turning into the Club for Growth, or as First Read called them back in 2009, The Club for (Democratic) Growth? Politico reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s staff has tried to persuade the Bloomberg-backed group not to target vulnerable Democrats in red states on guns because it could lead to a shrinking majority or make it easier for a Republican takeover of the Senate. “It didn’t work,” Politico notes. “Ads from the Bloomberg-funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns are going up soon in Alaska, Arkansas and North Dakota — three states with Democratic senators who broke with the White House on last month’s background checks vote.”

*** Benghazi surfaces again: And speaking of political battles, the GOP-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be holding a hearing on the Benghazi attack on Wednesday. And here’s the news that has already leaked out: “A small team of Special Forces operatives was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi last year after Libyan insurgents attacked the U.S. mission there, but was told it was not authorized to board the flight by regional military commanders, according to a career State Department official scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday,” per NBC’s Lisa Myers. This career State Department official -- Gregory Hicks -- seems like a credible witness (though he’s represented by high-powered GOP lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing). The thing to watch on Wednesday is whether Hicks’ testimony reveals that all the attention on Benghazi is MORE than a politically motivated investigation into not only the Obama White House but also the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. At a minimum, one thing this investigation has revealed is that there was an attempt to change the initial talking points regarding what happened. Question now is who was pushing for this change at the time? Was it the White House or was it State? Seems like there is more evidence that this was a bigger issue for State than for the White House. Of course, within a few days, the talking points became out of date and moot.

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

Voters in South Carolina’s first congressional district head to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to offer former Gov. Mark Sanford a chance at political redemption, or instead send the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert to Congress.

Sanford, the Republican former governor whose time in office ended in a scandal triggered by a nationally-publicized extramarital affair and subsequent divorce, is seeking to once again win the district that elected him to Congress for three terms. A special election was called for this solidly Republican seat following GOP Rep. Tim Scott’s resignation to become the state’s next senator.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Elizabeth Colbert Busch and Mark Sanford shake hands after the South Carolina 1st Congresional debate in Charleston on April 29, 2013.

But while Sanford entered the special election as a modest favorite, he’s run into stiff opposition from Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Clemson University administrator whose famous sibling has helped elevate what might otherwise be a mundane congressional race into a national media spectacle.

Democrats have rallied behind Colbert Busch, who has leaned on her relationships with members of the Charleston-area district during the campaign, and stressed her interest in partnering with businesses. Her experience, combined with Sanford’s personal baggage, has transformed the campaign into a competitive contest in a district where a Democrat hasn’t won since the early 1980s.

Sanford, in turn, has cast his Democratic challenger as a handmaiden of national Democrats, particularly House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a cardboard cutout of whom Sanford staged a debate with several weeks ago.

But the biggest unspoken variable in the campaign has undeniably been the affair that practically torpedoed Sanford’s political career, which, at the time, included presidential aspirations.

Sanford launched his campaign by acknowledging the mistakes he’d made in conducting an extramarital affair with Argentine woman Maria Belen Chapur (who is now Sanford’s fiancée). The affair was an undercurrent for much of this spring’s campaign until Jenny Sanford, the governor’s former wife, filed a lawsuit alleging Sanford of having trespassed on her property.

For his part, Sanford’s betting that stage of the campaign is behind him.

"I think that [voters] had largely moved past my personal life at the end of the runoff, because I would have never won that runoff if that was still the focus," Sanford told the Huffington Post. "I think that the whole trespassing, October surprise thing brought that all back into the forefront."

Nonetheless, the revelation shook up the campaign, prompting the National Republican Congressional Committee – the group charged with electing GOP-ers to the House – to withdraw its resources from the campaign. And Democrats, along with supportive super PACs, stepped forward to launch their own advertising blitz in support of Colbert Busch.

Those moves prompted speculation that Sanford’s bid at political redemption might come up short following today’s special election. But the former governor has sought to battle back in recent days by stampeding throughout the district (with a handful of national media members in tow) and hosting multiple events.

But Colbert Busch has also tried to sustain her momentum with the benefit of national Democrats working on her behalf, who are eager to peel a vote away from Republicans’ majority in the House.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 5:09 AM EDT