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

Odd Andersen / AFP - Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian Langsdon / AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

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

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

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

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

/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the endgame for Syria?... And what happens next week at the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland… NBC/WSJ poll on a war-weary public… A tale of two different conferences today: Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan speak at Faith and Freedom in DC, while Chris Christie speaks at the Clinton Global Initiative… Bill Clinton grabbing headlines and Hillary Clinton defining TBD… And House GOP to hold immigration meeting on July 10.

*** What’s the endgame for Syria? After months of internal deliberations, the Obama White House yesterday announced its first significant effort at trying to intervene in the Syrian civil war. The decision comes after the White House confirmed the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons, and it comes amid growing public pressure on the White House to do more -- from John McCain on the right to Bill Clinton on the left. But here’s our question: What is the administration’s ultimate policy toward Syria? And what’s the endgame? While this issue isn’t a domestic political problem for Team Obama, it has become an international one where its international credibility is on the line. It was striking to see the administration announce this change in policy on a conference call while the president was attending an LGBT event at the White House. Of course, with the G-8 summit in Northern Island coming up next week, it’s very likely that President Obama uses it to announce some form of an international coalition to support the opposition.

Stringer / REUTERS

Members of the Free Syrian Army run to avoid a sniper in Deir al-Zor, June 13, 2013.

*** And what happens next week in Northern Island? But the G-8 isn’t united against Assad. The old G-7 might be, but country No.8 -- Russia -- is in a different place. The end game the president HOPES is a reality is that the ramped up international effort to support the opposition in Syria convinces Russia to back off its support of Assad. But with Assad’s forces winning, can a negotiated settlement be reached? What’s the incentive? Maybe the best criticism of the president on this issue came from someone on the left, actually: former Carter NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski, who noted the lack of U.S. leadership globally in trying to force China and Russia to see this issue through the prism of the Western powers and key Arab allies. 

*** A war-weary public: The White House’s change in Syria policy comes as the American public is EXTREMELY hesitant to intervene directly in Syria's civil war. According to our NBC/WSJ poll released last week, just 15 percent of respondents said they favor U.S. military action when asked to pick a response to stop the killing in Syria, and only 11 percent wanted to provide arms to the opposition. Folks, that’s just one-in-four Americans who support the policy the White House announced yesterday. By comparison, a plurality of respondents -- 42 percent -- preferred to provide only humanitarian assistance, and 24 percent believe the U.S. shouldn't take any action. Perhaps more significantly, those attitudes cut across party lines and almost all demographic groups. "Whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research.

*** A tale of two conferences: Another round of potential 2016 Republican hopefuls today addresses the Ralph Reed-founded Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering in DC, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Among yesterday’s Faith and Freedom speakers were Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY), as well as Rick Santorum. But more than 700 miles away, in Chicago, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is speaking to a different audience -- the Clinton Global Initiative. At 5:00 pm ET, Christie shares the stage with former President Bill Clinton at a session entitled “Cooperation and Collaboration: A Conversation on Leadership.” Of course, don’t forget that Christie’s participation at the Clinton Global Initiative comes just after his recent appearance with President Obama on the Jersey Shore. Yet don’t miss Ralph Reed’s very conciliatory remarks about Christie, which were VERY different than he got from the CPAC folks who didn’t invite the New Jersey governor to their confab earlier this year. “We’re sorry he didn’t come, but Chris Christie is pro-life,” Reed said. “We’re hoping he’ll be here a year from now.”

*** Christie trailing the pack among Republicans and conservatives: But we’ll remind you of these numbers: While Christie has plenty of crossover appeal per our most recent NBC/WSJ poll, he trails other Republican 2016ers in fav/unfav scores among GOP and conservative respondents. He’s got a lot of work to do if he’s going to win the support of the voters you need these days to secure the ’16 GOP nod. No one has higher negative ratings among Republicans and core conservatives than Chris Christie. From our poll going back to December:

Among Republicans:
Paul Ryan (62%-13%)
Rand Paul (53%-6%)
Marco Rubio (49%-6%)
Jeb Bush (48%-7%)
Chris Christie: (40%-16%)
Scott Walker (21%-5%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)

Among conservative respondents:
Paul Ryan (58%-11%)
Rand Paul (47%-5%)
Marco Rubio (45%-6%)
Jeb Bush (44%-7%)
Chris Christie (33%-15%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)
Scott Walker (19%-5%).

*** Bill grabbing headlines and Hillary defining TBD: Yesterday, we wrote that Hillary Clinton -- over the past four years -- has emerged with her own brand that’s distinct and separate from her husband’s. But we certainly got a reminder how Bill Clinton can still grab headlines (on Syria), even on a day that was supposed to be about Hillary’s debut with the Clinton Global Initiative. That must have given former Hillary campaign staffers a negative flashback back to ’08, when they would constantly get frustrated at how the Big Dog could throw them off…. As for Hillary’s speech yesterday, she is starting to define “TBD.” She laid out the issues she wants to focus on (early childhood development, opportunities for women, economic mobility) And now she’s launching “Too Small to Fail,” which is her early childhood initiative.

*** House GOP to hold immigration meeting on July 10: Lastly, NBC’s Frank Thorp reported yesterday that House Republicans will hold a “special GOP conference meeting” on July 10 to discuss immigration reform. Folks, if you wanted a sign that the Gang of Eight bill is probably going to pass the Senate and that it’s likely headed to the floor of the House for a vote, it’s this House GOP meeting. The meeting is also a sign that House Speaker John Boehner is trying to telegraph to his members that they need to come up with a solution to whatever the Senate ultimately passes. Bottom line: Boehner is laying the groundwork to show membership there is no House consensus, so they might be stuck with the Senate solution.  

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 

Hillary fully steps out of Bill Clinton’s shadow… But a reminder how Bill can immediately grab headlines: Politico reports on how he disagrees with Obama on Syria… Social conservatives gather in DC… Why Republicans are struggling when talking about abortion -- they don’t have good answers explaining why they oppose exceptions to rape/incest/health of mother… Snowden charges that the U.S. hacks into China’s computers… And a conservative group comes to Gomez’s aid in MA SEN.

*** Hillary fully steps out of Bill Clinton’s shadow: Today beginning at 10:00 am ET, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton share the stage together at the Clinton Global Initiative gathering in Chicago -- a town that used to be associated with Hillary but that is now more associated with the current occupant of the White House. (Think of today as the debut of Hillary’s courtship of Obama’s Chicago.) And if you’ve followed Hillary’s career since she became a national figure in 1992, something pretty remarkable has happened over the past four years: She now, more than ever before, has a political brand and identity that’s separate from her husband’s. And that’s a pretty powerful development when thinking about 2016, because it means she’s not as associated with any potential baggage (Lewinsky, Marc Rich, etc.) as she was when she ran for president in 2008. “In '08, she was coming out of Bill’s shadow,” said one Democratic strategist who worked on her presidential campaign. “Now there is no shadow in the world big enough to cover her.” The reasons for this separate and distinct brand come from her holding one of the biggest jobs in the world as secretary of state; from her stepping away from domestic politics; and from her quick embrace of -- and loyal work for -- President Obama since losing the Democratic nominating fight. “People have gotten to see her in a different way,” the Democratic strategist adds. During the 2008 campaign, Bill Clinton at times was Hillary’s greatest asset and liability all rolled up into one. Come 2016, the Big Dog’s shadow won’t see so large. And yet…

Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

Former first lady and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks with her husband former president Bill Clinton as they attend the opening ceremony of the George W. Bush Presidential Center April 25, 2013 in Dallas, Texas.

*** Bill Clinton disagrees with Obama on Syria: Bill Clinton can still immediately grab headlines and stir up controversy -- for anyone. Just look at this latest piece from Politico: “Bill Clinton told Sen. John McCain [at a closed-press event yesterday] he agrees that President Barack Obama should act more forcefully to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria, saying the American public elects presidents and members of Congress ‘to see down the road” and ‘to win.’” More from the piece: “The former president also said commanders-in-chief should be mindful of looking like ‘a total fool’ by over-interpreting public opinion polls about whether the United States should get involved in crises overseas.” Set aside the personal annoyance some in the White House might have with Clinton siding with one of Obama’s former adversaries, it’s worth noting how Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s own experiences are actually dictating their positions on Syria. For Clinton, he regrets not intervening in Rwanda and had success in Bosnia; for Obama, he’s learned from the lessons of Iraq and Libya that intervening can be messy -- especially when there doesn’t seem to an end game. By the way, our most recent NBC/WSJ poll showed that the American public is VERY skeptical about intervening in Syria. Just 15% say they favor U.S. military action; 11% want to provide arms to the opposition; 42% prefer to provide only humanitarian assistance; and 24% believe the U.S. shouldn't take any action. Foreign Policy's Gayle Tzemach Lemmon takes a look at the White House's current deliberations on Syria and comes to the conclusion that while there is a divide among some in the administration on this  issue, it’s Obama, personally, driving the policy.

*** Social conservatives gather in DC: The Clinton Global Initiative conference in Chicago -- where New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks on Friday -- isn’t the only place where potential 2016ers will be speaking over the next couple of days. The Faith & Freedom Coalition, the Ralph Reed-founded group of social conservatives, is holding its “Road to Majority” conference in DC. Speaking today -- beginning at noon ET -- are Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Mike Lee (R-UT). On Friday, featured speakers include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC). And on Saturday, the featured speakers are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former presidential candidate Herman Cain, Virginia Lt. Gov. nominee E.W. Jackson, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Just sayin’, but if you needed a starker example of how Chris Christie is, well, a different kind of Republican these days, just look at where he’s NOT going: to Washington for the Faith & Freedom event.

*** Why Republicans are struggling when talking about abortion: Speaking of social conservatives… .Democrats are jumping all over Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-AZ) comment on Capitol Hill that the incidences of pregnancy as a result of rape “are very low.” A new DNC memo says Franks’ words are “echoing similar comments made last year by Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin.” And the Democratic Super PAC American Bridge has re-launched its “It’s Not Just Akin” website. But it’s important to note that what Franks said is a bit DIFFERENT than Akin. As New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait writes, “Franks didn't say the ‘rate’ of pregnancy from rape is low. He said the ‘incidence’ is low. He didn't say it's hard to get pregnant when you're raped. He said rape-induced pregnancy doesn't happen very often.” Yet the bigger political story here is that Republicans have a SERIOUS problem when talking about why they oppose exceptions to anti-abortion laws -- on the basis of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Not too long ago, Republicans seemed to have mastered talking about abortion, keeping Democrats on the defensive on this issue. But many of them no longer have a good answer why they oppose the rape/incest/health exceptions. Of course, part of the reason is that being in favor of exceptions is no longer acceptable to many mainstream anti-abortion groups. So as GOP’s mainstream position on abortion has changed, that has caused the GOP’s current linguistic struggles on abortion.

*** Snowden charges that U.S. hacks into China’s computers: Here’s the latest development regarding NSA leaker Edward Snowden: He told the South China Morning Post that he plans to stay in Hong Kong and fight any extradition back to the United States. But he also said something else. “Snowden said that according to unverified documents seen by the Post, the NSA had been hacking computers in Hong Kong and on the mainland since 2009. None of the documents revealed any information about Chinese military systems, he said. One of the targets in the SAR, according to Snowden, was Chinese University and public officials, businesses and students in the city. The documents also point to hacking activity by the NSA against mainland targets. ‘We hack network backbones – like huge internet routers, basically – that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one,’ he said.” Snowden appears to be doing himself -- or his supporters -- no favors when it SEEMS like he’s cozying up to China in this interview.

*** Conservative group comes to Gomez’s aid: Lastly, the first GOP outside group is now getting involved in Massachusetts’ Senate race. “A new conservative outside group is launching a big ad buy in Massachusetts on behalf of Republican Gabriel Gomez’s special election campaign,” the Washington Post says. “The group, called Americans for Progressive Action, is spending about $700,000 on ads over the next week, according to a person familiar with the buy.” Figure that -- a conservative outside group with the name “Progressive.” Interesting…

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 Jun 13, 2013 9:04 AM EDT

Why Markey-Gomez probably isn’t Coakley-Brown all over again… Comparing Jan. 2010 to now… Obama stumps for Markey at 1:45 pm ET… Wrapping up last night’s MA SEN debate, as well as Biden’s fundraiser for Markey… Immigration bill clears first full Senate hurdle, 82-15… Where’s the RNC in this immigration debate?... Why isn’t Issa releasing all of the IRS transcripts?... Noem passes on SD SEN run… And Northam, Herring win in VA.

Evan Vucci / AP

President Barack Obama speaks immigration reform, Tuesday, June 11, 2013, in the East Room of the White House.

*** Why this isn’t Jan. 2010 all over again: As President Obama travels to Massachusetts today to campaign for Democrat Ed Markey at 1:45 pm ET, he probably remembers this: The last time he stumped in a special Senate election in Massachusetts, it didn’t turn out so well for his party. In Jan. 2010, you’ll recall, Republican Scott Brown upset Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, which ended the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the chamber. But a perfect storm of events and conditions helped Brown win his surprise Senate victory in 2010 (a feat he was unable to replicate last year) -- a national unemployment rate near 10%, the health-care legislation’s unpopularity, a poor Democratic candidate, a charismatic  Republican one, a Democratic Party caught by surprise, and a Washington controlled solely by Democrats. Will lightning strike twice for Republicans when Markey faces off against Republican Gabriel Gomez less than two weeks from today on June 25? The answer: Probably not if you compare Jan. 2010 to now. 

*** Jan. 2010 vs. now: At least one of those perfect-storm conditions remains the same (the health-care law’s unpopularity), but others aren’t. Here’s some data to chew on: 

-- Obama’s approval rating in Massachusetts: THEN: 48%-43% (Suffolk poll); NOW: 57%-37% (Suffolk poll)
-- National unemployment rate: THEN: 9.8%; NOW: 7.6%
-- State unemployment rate: THEN: 8.7%; NOW: 6.4%
-- Health-care law’s popularity: THEN: 33% good idea, 46% bad idea (NBC/WSJ); NOW: 37%-49% (NBC/WSJ)
-- Balance of power: THEN: Dems controlled WH, had filibuster-proof majority in Senate, controlled the House; NOW: Dems control WH, have 54 senators, and GOP controls the House.
-- Head-to-head matchup: Brown 50%, Coakley 46% (Suffolk poll); NOW: Markey 48%, Gomez 41% (Suffolk poll). Note: That 2010 poll was conducted a week before the election; 2013 poll was conducted two weeks-plus before election

*** Wrapping up last night’s Markey-Gomez debate and Biden’s fundraiser for Markey: Obama’s visit to Massachusetts comes one day after Markey and Gomez clashed in their second debate. (In fact, that’s yet ANOTHER difference between Jan. 2010 and now -- this White House is much more engaged in this race.) The Boston Globe’s takeaway from the Tuesday night scuffle was that Markey would oppose elimination of the home-mortgage interest deduction in deficit talks, and Gomez was non-committal. The debate itself was again a bit testy and, well, small. There was one odd-YouTube-ish moment when Markey fumbled a rebuttal line claiming something Gomez said wasn’t “math, it was arithmetic.” Oops… Meanwhile, Joe Biden praised Markey at a fundraiser Tuesday, but delivered this warning: “There’s a big difference in this race. Barack Obama’s not at the head of the ticket. And that means those legions of African Americans and Latinos are not automatically going to come out. No one has energized them like Barack Obama. But he’s not on the ticket. So don’t take this one for granted.” And this is something you probably wouldn’t have seen a week ago: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a fundraising pitch for Markey with this subject: “Worried About Digital Privacy?” 

*** Immigration bill clears first full Senate hurdle, 82-15: If you’re a supporter of the comprehensive immigration legislation that has now reached the Senate floor, you had to be encouraged by yesterday’s 82-15 cloture vote on the motion to proceed on the legislation. Eighty-two is a PRETTY big number, especially considering that Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) didn’t even vote on the measure. What’s more, more than half of the GOP caucus (28) voted to invoke cloture. What this means: Supporters can still lose more than a dozen votes on the final vote and still get those symbolic 70 votes to pressure House Speaker John Boehner to move on the legislation. One curious “no” vote was Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL); in 2012, 12% of all Illinois voters were Latino, and they broke for Obama, 81%-18%. By the way, here’s a fun way to break down yesterday’s GOP votes if you’re thinking about how reformers get to 70 votes (this is just a look at the Republicans who voted to start debate, but also includes McCain and Murkowski): 

Likely yeses:
Ayotte (R-NH)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Collins (R-ME)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Rubio (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Toomey (R-PA) 

Southern Swing Votes -- need 3-4 more yeses
Alexander (R-TN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Isakson (R-GA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Coburn (R-OK) 

Midwest Swing Votes – 2-3 here
Blunt (R-MO)
Coats (R-IN)
Fischer (R-NE)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Thune (R-SD)
Portman (R-OH) 

Most Fascinating Swing Vote Deserves own category:
Paul (R-KY)

Probable nos:
Cornyn (R-TX)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)

*** The path to 70 appears easier than the path to citizenship? Don’t miss the fascinating intra-party debates that are breaking out over the idea of trying to get 70 votes. Politico reports on Reid and Durbin being skeptical of Schumer’s push for 70+ votes, believing it will lead to too many compromises. Meanwhile, the Daily Caller has conservative opponents of reform skeptical of Dem criticism of the Cornyn amendment on border security, believing it’s a smokescreen as Dems want to make it seem like they don’t like Cornyn’s amendment but then when it passes, it ends up giving some GOP swing votes political cover.

*** Where’s the RNC in this immigration debate? Staying with immigration, NBC’s Mike O’Brien raises a good question: Where is the Republican National Committee in this debate? If you’ll recall, that post-election RNC autopsy insisted that the GOP “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform” or else risk that the GOP would “continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.” But as O’Brien points out, “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.” RNC Chair Reince Priebus gave this statement to O’Brien: “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. “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.” 

*** Why isn’t Issa releasing all of the IRS transcripts? This likely doesn’t help Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) reputation as the congressional Republicans’ top prosecutor on Capitol Hill. Bloomberg News: “Releasing the transcripts of interviews with Internal Revenue Service workers who scrutinized Tea Party groups would be reckless, the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee wrote today. ‘Your push to release entire transcripts from witness interviews while the investigation remains active was reckless and threatened to undermine the integrity of the committee’s investigation,’ chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican, wrote to Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the panel’s top Democrat. Cummings has said he will release transcripts of interviews with IRS employees by the end of this week if Issa won’t. Cummings said that in one interview, a self-identified ‘conservative Republican’ said the effort to scrutinize Tea Party groups was done to ensure consistency and that there wasn’t White House or political involvement.” 

*** Noem passes on SD SEN run: Well, this COULD have been an interesting 2014 primary. Roll Call: “Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., announced Tuesday she will seek re-election rather than take on former Gov. Mike Rounds in the primary for the open seat. Her move clears a major hurdle in the GOP’s path to picking up the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. ‘I am grateful to everyone who has encouraged me and pledged support for a potential campaign for the U.S. Senate,’ Noem said in a statement. ‘However, after spending the weekend discussing our future with Bryon and our children, we decided that right now we are in the best position to serve South Dakota as a member of the U.S. House.’”  

*** Northam, Herring win in VA: Get to know the name Ralph Northam. Why? Because he’s likely the front-runner for Virginia governor in 2017 -- assuming, of course, that he defeats E.W. Jackson in this fall’s race for lieutenant governor. (Remember, Virginia is a one-term-and-done state.) Last night, Northam defeated Aneesh Chopra, 54%-46%, in the Lt. Gov. Democratic primary, while Mark Herring beat Justin Fairfax in the race to be the party’s nominee for attorney general, per the Washington Post. And the Post also notes this development from last night: “Two Republican House incumbents who backed GOP Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s landmark transportation deal also lost in primaries Tuesday. Del. Beverly J. Sherwood (Frederick) fell to Mark J. Berg, andDel. Joe T. May (Loudoun) was toppled by Dave LaRock. The rest of the state’s incumbents who faced primary challengers survived.” By the way, add this primary to the list of stunningly low turnouts for 2013 elections… The phrase “historically low” has been used quite a bit to describe turnout in L.A. and New Jersey -- now add Virginia.

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

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

Three debates worth having regarding the leaked NSA story -- and the leaker… Obama on the programs on Friday: “They help us prevent terrorist attacks”… Clapper: “Transparency has a doubled-edged sword”… Rand Paul’s libertarianism becomes mainstream?... Getting 60 Senate votes for the immigration bill is relatively easy… But getting 70 is more difficult… The current conflict: More border security vs. not undermining the path to citizenship… McCain on closing Gitmo… And Democratic field for NJ SEN is getting crowded.

Handout / Reuters

National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, an analyst with a U.S. defence contractor, is seen in this still image taken from a video during an interview with the Guardian in his hotel room in Hong Kong June 6, 2013.

*** Three debates worth having: The story that’s once again dominating Washington and the political conversation is the leak of the secret National Security Agency programs, especially now that the leaker -- Edward Snowden, 29 -- has come forward and revealed himself. But the odds are that the political conversation will turn to another story later this week: immigration, as the reform legislation begins its long march toward a vote in the Senate. But we’ll start with the NSA story… There are three debates now taking place. One, is Snowden a hero who exposed this secret program, or a criminal who revealed classified secrets (and is now hiding in Hong Kong)? Two, what exactly should be classified? The intelligence community, more or less, shrugged its shoulders at the release of the phone-records story; after all, USA Today had reported on it back in 2006. But it’s apoplectic about the disclosure of the PRISM program (which gathers foreign intelligence through information from electronic sources, including major Internet companies). And three, why is much of our national security infrastructure being outsourced to private companies? As the New York Times writes, “Edward J. Snowden’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, has become one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the United States almost exclusively by serving a single client: the government of the United States. Over the last decade, much of the company’s growth has come from selling expertise, technology and manpower to the National Security Agency and other federal intelligence agencies.” If something is so important and classified, then why is it outsourced?

*** Obama on the programs: “They help us prevent terrorist attacks”: Answering a reporter’s question on Friday, President Obama came across as sympathetic to having a debate over the NSA program, but he also strongly defended the tactics. “I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards,” he said. “But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content — that on, you know, net, it was worth us doing.” And he stressed oversight: “It’s important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we’re doing.”

*** Clapper: “Transparency has a double-edged sword”: In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the leaks have been harmful to the United States, and that the NSA has “filed a crimes report” on the matter. “Transparency has a double-edged sword. And that our adversaries -- whether a nation state adversaries or nefarious groups -- benefit from that same transparency.” Also in the interview, Clapper said much of the discussion of the massive phone-records database was hyperbole. “So the notion that we're trolling through everyone's emails and voyeuristically reading them, or listening to everyone's phone calls is on its face absurd. We couldn't do it even if we wanted to. And I assure you, we don't want to.” Clapper also said that at least two terror plots had been foiled by the government surveillance program. But he admitted to NBC’s Mitchell that it could be abused by a different administration. “That's a valid concern, I think. You know, people come and go, presidents come and go, administrations come and go, D.N.I.'s will come and go. But what is, I think-- important about our system is our system of laws, our checks and balances.” But our questions: Who has oversight over the FISA court? And does Congress really have oversight or is there only so much information they receive in briefings?

*** Clapper on allegedly misleading Congress: Yet also in the interview, Clapper didn’t have a good response why he seemed to mislead Congress about the program. “First-- as I said, I have great respect for Senator Wyden. I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked—‘When are you going to start-- stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is meaning not-- answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no.” Clapper went on to say that his answer to Wyden was about the content of the phone conversations, not simply archiving the phone records. Clapper is VERY popular inside the Obama administration, but no one will ever mistake him for a good communicator.

*** Rand Paul’s libertarianism becomes mainstream? Politically, what’s interesting is that Rand Paul’s libertarian positions are becoming more and more mainstream. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Give Sen. Rand Paul this: He very rarely misses a political pitch slung his way. The latest evidence is Paul’s (R-Ky.) plan to launch a class action lawsuit against the government for the National Security Agency’s collection of phone records and monitoring of Internet data. “If we get 10 million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at, then somebody will wake up and say things will change in Washington,” Paul argued during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” The question, however, is whether Paul’s positions are mainstream inside the Republican Party.

*** Getting 60 votes for the immigration bill is easy… : As we mentioned above, the issue that’s likely to dominate the rest of the week is immigration, with the Senate holding a cloture vote (requiring 60 votes) on the motion to proceed on the “Gang of Eight” legislation at 2:15 pm ET on Tuesday. And here’s something to keep in mind: There are AT LEAST 60 votes for the bill, especially after Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) announced she was supporting it. According to our math, you take all 54 Democratic votes, add the four GOP “Gang of Eight” members (Flake, Graham, McCain, Rubio), add Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who voted for the measure out of committee, and then add Ayotte. That’s 60 votes, and we’re not even counting likely “yes” votes from folks like Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), or Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN). But the name of the game has never been about getting just 60 votes; it’s been about getting close to 70. And we can list at least five other GOP senators who MIGHT vote the legislation: Roy Blunt (R-MO), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dean Heller (R-NV), Mike Johanns (R-NE), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

*** Getting 70 is a bit more difficult: But it’s not going to be easy. One of the reasons that immigration reform has been politically possible is that BOTH parties have had an incentive to pass reform -- Democrats want to follow through on a campaign promise, while Republicans want to improve their standing with Latino voters. Yet immigration reform supporters are now biting their fingernails because those incentives are beginning to fray a bit, particularly when it comes to the issue of additional border security. More and more Republicans are arguing that the legislation is flawed and that passing a bill won’t solve their problems with Latinos. Meanwhile, Democrats say they won’t back watered-down legislation that makes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants virtually unattainable.

*** More border security vs. not undermining the path to citizenship: NBC’s Carrie Dann sums up this conflict: “All eyes this week will be -- again -- on Marco Rubio, who's indicated he'll need more stringent border security amendments included to support the bill -- and bring more conservative votes with him. But measures he's publicly backed (like the inclusion of "triggers" proposed by Texas Sen. John Cornyn and the shifting of more plan-making authority to Congress) are non-starters with Democratic leaders on the legislation. In an interview with Univision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Cornyn amendment a "poison pill" and said he won't accept "big changes" to the bill on the floor. “I mean, we have a senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn who wants to change border security, a trigger, saying that it has to be a 100% border security, or they’ll be no bill. That’s a poison pill. If people have suggestions like they did in the judiciary committee to change the bill a little bit, I’ll be happy to take a look at that. But we’re not going to have big changes in this legislation." The Washington Post’s Sargent also reports that Democrats see the Cornyn amendment as too onerous and therefore unacceptable to them.

*** McCain on closing Gitmo: Also over the weekend, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said “there is increasing public support for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland,” Reuters writes. “‘There's renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready,’ McCain, who went to Guantanamo last week with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's ‘State of the Union’ program.” More: “Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday there is increasing public support for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland. ‘There's renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready,’ McCain, who went to Guantanamo last week with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's "State of the Union" program.”

*** Three’s Company? As expected, the Democratic primary for special Senate election in New Jersey is beginning to get crowded. After Newark Mayor Cory Booker officially announced his Senate bid on Saturday, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) followed suit a day later. “U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone said Sunday that he’s officially in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Frank Lautenberg and can win the Democratic primary against better-known Newark Mayor Cory Booker by running on his progressive congressional record,” the AP says. “Pallone, (D-6th Dist.) planned to hold a news conference Monday announcing his intentions. He spoke exclusively to The Associated Press on Sunday night.” Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) is the third Democrat to announce his candidacy, and there could be a fourth. “Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) told fellow Democrats at a meeting Sunday night she was planning to run. Her boss, Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo, was in Booker’s cheering section at his campaign kickoff in Newark.”

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

Privacy vs. transparency… How much political staying power does this story have?... May jobs report: 175,000 jobs added last month; unemployment rate ticks up to 7.6%... The White House’s health-care PR problem… Ranking the 2016 GOPers… Christie’s appointment and Booker’s slam dunk… This week’s 2016 wrap… And other noteworthy nuggets from the NBC/WSJ poll.

AP

This undated government photo shows an aerial view of the National Security Agency (NSA) in Fort Meade, Md. The Obama administration on Thursday defended the National Security Agency's need to collect telephone records of U.S. citizens, calling such information "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats."

*** Transparency problems: The news of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs has dominated the last 48 hours. To understand the political impact of this story, it’s perhaps instructive to look at it through this lens: privacy vs. transparency -- and transparency could be the most potent issue for an administration that promised to be the most transparent in history. What the White House has to understand is this: The president’s own credibility is on the line on this story when it comes to transparency. Candidate Obama expressed outrage over many of these programs back in the day and at the time, and when pressed at the time his outrage usually centered on how the tactics were implemented, not necessarily with the tactics themselves. The president promised more transparency about some of these operations, tactics and about making sure the public was comfortable that there was a serious process when it comes to oversight of these programs. You can’t just take anyone’s word for it, even he has said that numerous times. And that’s the political problem he needs to nip in the bud. The public expects a level of secrecy but not an abuse of it and they certainly expect an explanation. 

*** Privacy less an issue:  As privacy issue, it’s likely that the American public will collectively shrug its shoulders over this. Why? Because they probably realize that corporations are already tracking their every purchase and that surveillance cameras are already capturing their every movement. And even if they don’t shrug and it bothers them, they probably feel a bit powerless about it. But as a transparency issue, the story might have more legs. The whole reason this has become front-page news -- when USA Today had already reported about the NSA phone-record program back in 2006 -- is because of its secrecy. And the question the Obama administration must ask itself is: Would it be better off if the American public knew about this? Would it restore more trust in the government? 

*** How much staying power does this story have? As a strictly partisan issue, however, we’re not sure this story has staying power. After all, outside of a handful of libertarian Republicans (Rand Paul, Mike Lee), GOP politicians are defending the NSA’s programs. On the Democratic side of the aisle, there are critics too, but it appears to be a minority of the party. As we figured would happen, bipartisanship broke out in a big way yesterday on this issue -- both in support of the tactics and in opposition. But that bipartisanship on both sides of this issue probably also means it’s not exactly an issue that will have political staying power. If you’ve learned anything about American politics, a story becomes supercharged when the opposition party begins raising its voice in unison. And out of all the controversies the Obama administration is facing (IRS, Benghazi, leak investigations, and now NSA), this is one a majority of Republicans have no problem with.

*** 175,000 jobs added in May, unemployment rate ticks up to 7.6%: Meanwhile, here are the breaking job numbers from May, per the AP: “U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs in May, steady hiring but below the more robust pace that took place during the fall and winter. The Labor Department says the unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent from 7.5 percent in April. The increase occurred because more people began looking for work, a good sign.” This economy is trying so hard to recover; call it stagnant progress. Many Democrats are going to be arguing today that if it wasn’t for the austerity standoff in Washington (including sequester), the economy would be recovering A LOT faster. The Republicans will likely focus their ire on the slowness of this recovery on the new tax increases. But make no mistake: Progress is being made.

*** The White House’s health-care PR problem: In California at 11:50 am ET, President Obama delivers a statement to reporters on implementing the Affordable Care Act. And it’s another opportunity to mention the numbers from our recent NBC/WSJ poll: The health-care law’s unpopularity has reached new heights -- 49% say it’s a bad idea (the higher number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in ’09), while just 37% say it’s a good idea. The poll also finds that 38% say they and their family will be worse off under the health-care law, which also is the highest percentage on this question that dates back to 2010. By comparison, 19% say they'll be better off, and 39 percent say the law won't make much of a difference. The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status. By a 35%-to-11% margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health-care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67% to 4%. What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. Bottom line here: The Obama White House has a massive PR problem with health care. And it probably doesn’t help that opponents have outspent supporters on TV ads by a 5-to-1 ratio since 2010, per Kantar Media CMAG.

*** Ranking the GOP 2016ers: Since December, our NBC/WSJ poll has begun measuring potential 2016 candidates. And here’s a fun little exercise: We’re ranking these GOP politicians among Republican respondents in the poll, as well conservatives respondents. Here’s the order among Republicans:

Paul Ryan (62%-13%)
Rand Paul (53%-6%)
Marco Rubio (49%-6%)
Jeb Bush (48%-7%)
Chris Christie: (40%-16%)
Scott Walker (21%-5%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)

And here’s the ranking among conservative respondents in our poll:

Paul Ryan (58%-11%)
Rand Paul (47%-5%)
Marco Rubio (45%-6%)
Jeb Bush (44%-7%)
Chris Christie (33%-15%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)
Scott Walker (19%-5%).

So note how well Ryan and Paul are faring, and note how Christie is trailing among these groups.

*** Christie’s appointment and Booker’s slam dunk: Speaking of Christie, he announced yesterday that he was appointing state Attorney General Jeff Chiesa to temporarily fill the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) passing. Make no mistake: Appointing a caretaker like Chiesa wasn’t Christie’s first choice, but he had no choice after announcing that the Senate election would take place in October. (If you’re a Republican, you’d rather want to run alongside Christie in November, or wait until 2014.) But here’s perhaps the biggest story out New Jersey this week: No one has been more helped by this entire process than Cory Booker. Quick Democratic primary? Check. Two Democratic congressmen who are also running (Pallone and Holt) that might split the anti-Booker vote? Check. October general election? Check. On paper, Booker’s election is starting to look like a slam dunk.

*** This week’s 2016 wrap: Also this week, Hillary Clinton spoke at Frank Lautenberg’s funeral; she was argued over during a Massachusetts Senate debate; and at a fashion awards gala she joked about her pantsuits. Wearing one designed by Oscar de la Renta, she said she had pitched a new reality show, “Project Pantsuit.”… Vice President Joe Biden also spoke at Lautenberg’s funeral and the L.A. Times dubbed him, “King of the eulogy.”… Martin O’Malley’s (D-MD) still dealing with the fallout of a scandal at a Baltimore jail… Marco Rubio continues to walk a very fine line on immigration reform, speaking out at times against the very bill he helped author and voted for out of committee… Raul Labrador may have walked away from the group negotiating a compromise immigration bill in the House, but Paul Ryan endorsed it, calling it a “good product” and “good policy.”… And Rand Paul’s not happy with the NSA or President Obama; he claimed Obama’s “bent towards authoritarianism is probably worse” than Bush; and that we’re living in the novel “1984.” …

*** By the way, here are the fav/unfav numbers among ALL the potential 2016ers from this week’s NBC/WSJ poll:

Hillary Clinton
Overall: 49%-31%
Women: 54%-24%
Men: 43%-40%
Whites: 41%-38%
African Americans: 76%-12%
Latinos: 58%-19%
Dems: 83%-6%
Indies: 32%-36%
Republicans: 15%-61%

Chris Christie
Overall: 41%-12%
Women: 39%-12%
Men: 42%-12%
Whites: 41%-12%
African Americans: 41%-11%
Latinos: 36%-7%
Dems: 43%-10%
Indies: 41%-9%
Republicans: 40%-16%
Tea Party supporters: 40%-22%

Ted Cruz
Overall: 10%-12%
Women: 6%-12%
Men: 13%-12%
Whites: 10%-12%
African Americans: 5%-18%
Latinos: 16%-8%
Dems: 3%-23%
Indies: 11%-8%
Republicans: 18%-5%
Tea Party supporters: 28%-10%

Jeb Bush
Overall: 26%-23%
Women: 32%-21%
Men: 29%-26%
Whites: 30%-22%
African Americans: 6%-32%
Latinos: 16%-24%
Dems: 11%-38%
Indies: 22%-24%
Republicans: 48%-7%
Tea Party supporters: 53%-10%

Scott Walker
Overall: 12%-12%
Women: 9%-10%
Men: 15%-14%
Whites: 13%-12%
African Americans: 5%-12%
Latinos: 8%-6%
Dems: 4%-20%
Indies: 11%-10%
Republicans: 21%-5%
Tea Party: 33%-4%

*** Other noteworthy nuggets from our NBC/WSJ poll: Chris Christie has better ratings among liberal Democrats (44% positive, 14% negative) than he does among Tea Party Republicans (37% positive, 23% negative)… Eric Holder is viewed overwhelmingly negatively by Republicans (4% positive, 55% negative) and independents (5% positive, 32% negative). Democrats are more likely to view Holder positively than negatively, but their feelings are just so-so (19% positive, 13% negative). Perhaps most striking, Holder is much better known among Republicans (72% name ID) than he is among Democrats (50% name ID)… While all socioeconomic groups view the Internal Revenue Service in a negative light, those with incomes under $30,000 are almost twice as likely to view the IRS positively (27%) as those with incomes of more than $75,000 (14%)… Among Tea Party Republicans, Ted Cruz has a name ID of 57%, plus a 28% positive, 7% negative personal rating. But among non-Tea Party Republicans, his name ID is just 22%, and he has a 7% positive, 5% negative rating… And Among those who believe that the Dow hitting highs is a sign that the economy is doing better overall, 68% are satisfied with the economy and 31% are dissatisfied. But among those who believe that the Dow highs are an indication that corporations and the wealthy are doing better but not the overall economy, just 26% are satisfied with the economy and 74% are dissatisfied.

IMPORTANT PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE (!!!): Love politics? Have a cell phone camera? Want to be on national TV? Then you should send in a good morning greeting to your friends at The Daily Rundown. It couldn’t be easier and everything you need to know is right here: http://on.msnbc.com/ZuEGk9

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

New controversy facing the Obama administration: London Guardian reports that NSA has collected Verizon phone records… Questions we have about the story… Is the support for immigration waning or not? New NBC/WSJ poll numbers show a slight majority (52%) favoring a pathway to citizenship… Also from NBC/WSJ poll: Health care law’s unpopularity hits new highs… And Obama heads to North Carolina, to deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. 

*** A new controversy facing the Obama administration: The big political story that’s driving the day in Washington comes courtesy of the London Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald. “The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an ‘ongoing, daily basis’ to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.” While not specifically confirming any aspects of the Guardian story, a senior Obama administration defended the practice. This official maintains the following: 1) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders (what this appears to be) are classified; 2) the government isn’t listening in on calls -- rather, it’s acquiring data like telephone numbers and lengths of calls; and 3) there’s a “robust legal regime" governing these activities, which includes Congress and the courts. Make no mistake: This will only further the political debate between civil libertarians and the national-security community.  

*** Questions we have: It’s important to note that we don’t have the full story here, but we have plenty of questions. Was Verizon the only carrier issued this order? (Highly unlikely.) Was the motivation behind collecting these telephone records a current national-security threat? Or was it something like building a database -- to be able to pursue future threats? NBC counter-terrorism expert Michael Leiter, on “TODAY”, seemed to hint that this could be more about maintaining a database than anything else. But the fact is, the Obama administration has been silent on this issue for years, which brings up this question: Is this consistent with what Candidate Obama promised in 2007 and 2008? One caveat worth pointing out, however: The 2005-2006 NSA controversy surrounding the Bush administration involved wiretapping, not phone records.  

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama walks down the West Wing Colonnade to announce that current UN Ambassador Susan Rice will replace outgoing National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 5, 2013.

*** Is support for immigration waning or not? Our new NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52% -- saying they favor a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens. This is a drop from our April poll, when 64% said they supported this pathway. But a note of caution: The wording on our question changed. In April, we asked: “There is a proposal to create a pathway to citizenship that would allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States the opportunity to eventually become legal American citizens.” In our new poll, we excluded the words “who have jobs.” Our pollsters believe it’s significant that a majority still backs the pathway even after the language change. More importantly, when told in the current poll that the proposed pathway to citizenship includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65%, including 58% of Republicans.   

*** Upset or happy if Congress doesn’t pass a bill? But if you’re a supporter of the immigration reform legislation, you might be a little troubled by this finding: Respondents are divided if they want Congress to pass a bill this year. Per the poll, 47% say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54%). But an equal 47% say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53%). (Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset. Yet note that there’s not a whole lot of intensity to these current immigration numbers: 21% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass legislation, and 26% said they would be NOT AT ALL UPSET if that happens. But compare that to a gun question we also asked: 34% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass a background-check law, versus 31% who said NOT AT ALL UPSET. Bottom line: The immigration debate isn’t as highly charged as the gun debate.  

*** Health care law’s unpopularity reaches new highs: Meanwhile, just months before President Barack Obama's signature health-care law fully goes into effect next year, it remains unpopular with the American public, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll, with 49 percent saying they believe the law is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37% say the plan is a good idea. The poll also finds that 38 percent say they and their family will be worse off under the health-care law, which also is the highest percentage on this question that dates back to 2010. By comparison, 19% say they'll be better off, and 39% say the law won't make much of a difference. The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status. By a 35%-to-11% margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health-care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67% to 4%. What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. Bottom line here: The Obama White House has a massive PR problem with health care. The biggest reason: Opponents of this law have been very vocal, while supporters have done very little to drum up support. The president doesn’t sell it that often, and many arms of the Democratic Party essentially avoid it. Politics abhors a vacuum, and opponents -- not supporters -- have filled the health-care vacuum. 

*** Carolina in mind: Lastly, President Obama heads to Mooresville, NC, where he’ll deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. Per the White House, Obama “will travel to Mooresville Middle School in Mooresville, North Carolina, to deliver remarks and see first hand the school's cutting edge curriculum that maximizes the benefits of technology and digital learning.”  

IMPORTANT PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE (!!!): Love politics? Have a cell phone camera? Want to be on national TV? Then you should send in a good morning greeting to your friends at The Daily Rundown. It couldn’t be easier and everything you need to know is right here:

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

NBC/WSJ poll shows Obama has absorbed the punch from the trio of controversies… But it also contains warning signs for him -- he can’t afford any more punches… What’s keeping his overall numbers steady… Good news, bad news on the economy… Down on American institutions… On Chris Christie, bipartisanship, and that NJ special election… Obama to tap Susan Rice as national security adviser… And Mr. Smith does go to Washington.

*** Warning signs for Obama: One of Barack Obama’s best attributes as a politician has been his ability to take a punch -- or several. Think of Jeremiah Wright and the Hillary-McCain tag team during the spring of ’08. Or the debt-ceiling debacle in the summer of ‘11. Or the reaction to the president’s first debate in the ’12 race. According to our new NBC/WSJ poll, President Obama has absorbed the political punch from the trio of controversies (IRS/Benghazi/leak investigations) that have hit his administration in the last few weeks. His overall job-approval rating stands at 48%, up 1 point since April, and his fav/unfav rating is at 47%-40%, which is essentially unchanged since that last poll. But there are also warning signs that he’s gone a bit wobbly from the punch and can’t afford any more missteps; that job rating is not as strong or steady as it looks when you lift the hood. For example, Obama’s numbers among independent respondents have declined -- just 28% approve of his job, which is down from 41% in February and 37% in April. What’s more, he’s also seen an erosion in his numbers on presidential qualities (like being a strong leader, being honest and straightforward, and changing business as usual in Washington), although they’re above where they were after the debt-ceiling fight in 2011. The president’s ability to push Congress publicly to get some of his agenda passed will be curtailed if he can’t improve those numbers with political independents. 

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama walks across the South Lawn after arriving on Marine One at the White House in Washington, DC, June 4, 2013

*** What’s keeping his numbers steady: However, two things have appeared to keep his overall numbers steady. One, his base is still with him: 88% of African Americans, 63% of Latinos, 57% of 18 to 34 year olds, and 52% of women approve of his job. Two, most Americans don’t DIRECTLY fault the president for the controversies. Just 41% hold Obama “totally” or “mainly” responsible for the Benghazi attack; 37% say the same of his culpability in the Justice Department’s subpoena of reporters’ phone records; and only 33% directly blame him for the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding groups. And there’s a partisan divide to these numbers: Fewer than one-quarter of Democrats hold Obama directly responsible for these three controversies, versus a majority of Republicans who do so -- including 68% for the Benghazi attack. That said, 50% of Americans -- including half of independents -- believe that Republicans in Congress are justified in their investigations into the Obama administration; 42% disagree, arguing that GOP inquiries are simply partisan attacks. For the most part, hard-core supporters and opponents of the president are viewing the controversies through their own political beliefs.

*** Good news, bad news on the economy: The NBC/WSJ poll also contains some brighter news for the administration when it comes to the economy. While only 36% say they’re satisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, that’s the highest number on this question since 2006. What’s more, the percentage believing the United States is still mired in an economic recession is at its lowest level since Obama became president. (Technically, the recession ended in 2009.) But if the public has a slightly brighter outlook about the economy, it doesn’t appear to be giving Obama any credit. Just 33% say they are either “extremely” or “quite” confident that the president has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy. What’s more, nearly seven-in-10 respondents say that the Dow Jones Industrial Average hitting new highs is an indication that corporations and the wealthy are doing better -- but not the economy overall. By the way, it’s worth nothing that, for the 42^nd straight survey, more folks tell us the country is headed in the WRONG direction than those who believe the country is on the RIGHT track.  

*** Down on American institutions: And the public continues to sour on many of America’s largest institutions. A combined 67% have either a “great deal” or “quite of bit” of confidence in the U.S. military, which is currently under fire for allegations of sexual assault against females. But that percentage is down from 76% in May 2012. In addition, 29% have a lot of confidence in the automobile industry (up 1 point from May 2012); just 17% have confidence in the federal government (up 1 point); only 16% have confidence in the national news media (up 1 point); and 12% have confidence in large corporations (down five points from May ’12). And just 10% of the public has confidence in the IRS.

*** On Chris Christie, bipartisanship, and that NJ special election: Given this pessimism about American institutions and the government itself, here is perhaps the most striking finding from the entire poll: Bipartisanship does get rewarded. Per the poll, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie enjoys nearly equal appeal among Democrats, Republicans and even independents: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 40% of Republicans, 41% of indies, and 43% of Democrats say they view the Republican governor in a positive light. By comparison, 84% of Democrats in the same poll view Obama favorably, versus just 11% of Republicans who do. Even Hillary Clinton is seen as a polarizing figure -- 83% of Democrats view her positively, compared with just 15% of Republicans. The potential warning sign for Christie and 2016, however, is that Republicans view someone like Jeb Bush more favorably (48%-7%) than Christie (40%-16%). As far as yesterday’s news of Christie setting an Oct. 2013 date for the special election to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the decision angered national Republicans (who wanted the interim Senate pick to remain through 2014) and New Jersey Democrats (who wanted the GOV and SEN contest to be on the same ballot). But it pleased Senate Majority Harry Reid (who likely gets a Democratic senator back after October) and New Jersey Republicans (who want strong coattails from Christie in the Nov. 2013 election). Make no mistake: Christie’s decision yesterday was in the best interest of Chris Christie, and that interest is in having LARGE coattails to win down the ballot in New Jersey.  

*** Obama to tap Susan Rice as national security adviser: At 2:15 pm ET, we’ve learned, President Obama will announce that national security adviser Tom Donilon is stepping down, and that he’s replacing Donilon with UN Ambassador Susan Rice. And NBC’s Peter Alexander reports that Obama will nominate former foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power to be UN ambassador. Obama tapping Rice as national security adviser -- a position that doesn’t need Senate confirmation -- will ruffle some Republicans who will shout, “Benghazi!!!” But those released Benghazi talking-points emails make it clear that Rice wasn’t responsible for crafting them. Also, Rice’s loudest Benghazi critics often forget that she’s closer to John McCain and Lindsey Graham when it comes to the use of American power. And folks, don’t calls this a shakeup: That Donilon was going to step down in the second term and that Rice was going to replace him was perhaps the worst-kept secret in Washington. As for Power, she does face Senate confirmation, but she should have a fairly easy time, as she has quietly been reaching out to key Senate Republicans for months. One thing Power will have to deal with today: Everyone bringing up her infamous “monster” comment about Hillary Clinton during the ‘08 campaign. The two patched things up a long time ago, but the two aren’t exactly close. 

*** Mr. Smith does go to Washington: As expected, Republicans easily triumphed in the contest to fill the congressional seat that ex-Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) vacated. Roll Call: “State Speaker Pro Tem Jason Smith won the special election in Missouri’s 8th District on Tuesday night, keeping the conservative territory in GOP hands. Smith defeated state Rep. Steve Hodges, 68 percent to 27 percent.” 

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

What Chris Christie is thinking… Announcement for scheduling a special election for Lautenberg’s Senate seat could come as early as today… Christie’s list of names for an interim Senate pick… A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13?... Obama to begin public fight over judges at 10:30 am ET Rose Garden ceremony… House holds another IRS hearing at 10:00 am ET… Senate looks into military sexual assaults… New NBC/WSJ poll comes out first thing tomorrow morning… And Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Voters head to the polls in Missouri to replace ex-Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).

*** What Chris Christie is thinking: A day after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) passed away, the conversation now turns to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) pick to temporarily fill the Senate seat. And it’s an upcoming move that has political implications -- both in the state and nationally, and for this year, 2014, and possibly 2016. According to Republicans familiar with the process, the first issue is how long the interim pick would serve with the scheduling of a special election. Expect Christie to announce his intention of how to proceed regarding the special election timing in the next few days, and maybe as early as today. The reason: The law appears to be murky, with conflicting statutes on the books. Had Lautenberg died a month ago, the law would have been clear about holding a special election this year. Had Lautenberg passed away next month, the law would have been clear about waiting until Nov. 2014. For now, according to these Republican sources, Christie is operating on a 2013 timeline. So that means primaries in August and a general election either in October or simultaneously with the gubernatorial race in November. The strictest reading of the law, per these Republicans, suggests October for the general -- which would keep the Senate special separated from Christie’s re-election contest. But holding an October special would also cost the state money. 

Jeff Zelevansky / Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images file

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony at Essex County Community College on May 7, 2013 in Newark, N.J.

*** A complicated matter: Obviously, holding a senate race at the same time as his re-election complicates Christie’s efforts to run up the score in his re-election and it could even put his re-election at real risk. But wasting money on an election just weeks before a regularly scheduled one is not exactly the most fiscally conservative thing to do. The perfect REPUBLICAN solution for Christie would be to wait unti,l 2014 but his folks believe that reading of the law would never hold up in the state courts and he’d be ordered to hold a 2013 election.

*** Christie’s list of names for an interim pick: The Republicans close to this process assume that no matter how Christie interprets the law regarding the special election, someone will sue and get courts to clarify. And that’s why Christie wants to set things in motion ASAP -- to speed up the legal process for anyone wanting to challenge his reading of the law. As for candidates the governor might appoint to temporarily fill the Senate seat before the special election, Christie’s first choice is former Gov. Tom Kean Sr. (R); in fact, we understand the two men will meet soon about it.  Kean Sr. is in a tier all by himself. The next tier of potential appointees includes Kean’s son, Tom Kean Jr. (whom Bob Menendez beat in ’06, 53%-44%) Joe Kyrillos (whom Menendez thumped in ’12), and the state’s current lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno. Christie potentially picking Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) is possible -- if he would be willing to give up his safe congressional seat, which is unlikely. And LoBiondo is thought of as the only serious GOP member of Congress on short list. One other thing: Christie would prefer this interim pick run in the special election, so Kean Sr. agreeing to hold the seat but pass on a run IS NOT Christie’s preference.

*** A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13? What's interesting about the likely quick special election is that it doesn't preclude the 2014 race -- that is, you’ll have a special Senate election this year and then another race for the seat in 2014. But this also means that Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who’s widely assumed to jump into this special election, would probably face a primary fight now from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ).Why? Well, Pallone can run for the Senate seat in 2013 without risking his House seat. So it’s a free shot for the Democratic congressman. Of course, the state party could decide against holding a party primary and choose the nominee at a convention of sorts. There will be national pressure on New Jersey Democrats to rally around Booker, whether Pallone likes that or not

*** Obama begins public fight over judges: At 10:30 am from the White House Rose Garden today, President Obama will do something we don’t remember seeing him do before -- announcing judicial picks to the public (other than ones to the Supreme Court). Per the Washington Post, the president will nominate “two female lawyers and an African American federal judge Tuesday to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” They are “veteran appellate lawyer Patricia A. Millett; Georgetown University Law Center professor Cornelia ­T. L. Pillard; and Robert L. Wilkins, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made.” Obama has been criticized by many Democrats publicly and privately for not making a bigger public push for his judicial nominations. Yet by nominating three appellate picks at once -- after Republicans filibustered a previous nominee, Caitlin Halligan -- Obama “will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees,” as the New York Times wrote last week. One additional thing to keep in mind: If Obama is to wage a battle over judges, it has to come in the next 18 months. Why? After 2014, it’s likely there will be fewer Senate Democrats and maybe even a GOP-controlled Senate.

*** House holds another IRS hearing: Another day, another congressional hearing looking into the controversies surrounding the Internal Revenue Service. At 10:00 am ET, the House Ways and Means Committee holds a hearing featuring groups who were targeted in their application for tax-exempt status because of their conservative-sounding names. The groups include the Laurens County Tea Party, Wetumpka Tea Party, San Fernando Valley Patriots, and Linchpins of Liberty. This comes one day after the new acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, testified on the Hill, vowing “to work quickly and with the cooperation of Congress to implement reforms to the tax agency,” NBC’s Mike O’Brien reported yesterday. 

*** Senate looks into military sexual assaults: Also on Capitol Hill today, the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing at 9:30 am ET to discuss pending legislation on sexual assaults in the military. As NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski noted on “TODAY” this morning, the hearing comes after Defense officials confirmed three Naval Academy football players who are under investigation for allegedly assaulting an unconscious female midshipman at a party last year. The victim's attorney claims that when her client reported the incident, she was disciplined for drinking but the three football players went unpunished and were permitted to play out the season.

*** NBC/WSJ poll coming out! How does the public view American institutions like the military and IRS after these recent stories? They have damaged President Obama’s political standing? We’ll be releasing a brand-new NBC/WSJ poll on these subjects and more first thing tomorrow morning.

*** Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Lastly today, Missouri voters go to the polls to fill the congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). Jessica Taylor writes: “Republican state Rep. Jason Smith is the overwhelming favorite to succeed former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in a little-noticed special election in the expansive southeastern rural Missouri district. Emerson resigned earlier this year to take a job as CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Smith faces fellow Democratic state Rep. Steve Hodges on the ballot, along with two other minor party candidates. But the overwhelming GOP tilt of the conservative district (Mitt Romney wont the district by 34 points) makes him essentially a lock for Tuesday’s special election.”

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