No good options when it comes to Syria… Jeffrey Goldberg: But not acting might be the worst option… Obama sells immigration reform at Bush library dedication… On the FAA fix: Business travelers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your frequent-flyer miles!.... Our weekly 2016 round-up… Cuccinelli’s up on the air, while McAuliffe’s car company remains in the news… One camp is trying to be likeable (Cuccinelli’s), while the other camp isn’t (McAuliffe’s)... And “Meet” has John McCain and Tony Blair.

*** No good options when it comes to Syria: The Obama administration yesterday did two somewhat contradictory things regarding Syria’s bloody civil war. One, it confirmed that Syria might have crossed the red line President Obama established -- using chemical weapons against it people. “The U.S. intelligence community assesses with some degree of varying confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said yesterday, per NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski. But two, the administration wasn’t sure about the intelligence. “We still have some uncertainties about what was used, what kind of chemicals were used, where it was used, who used it,” Hagel added. So why the two contradictory messages? Well, for one thing, the administration was sort of forced into publicly disclosing this intelligence, because if it didn’t, everyone else was (not just the Brits and Israelis, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill). Secondly, this is all about buying time to further cobble together an international coalition opposing the Assad regime (just as Obama meets with Jordan’s King Abdullah II at 1:55 pm ET today). But there’s another reason why the administration is trying to buy time: Because there are no good options.

Handout / Reuters

Demonstrators carry banners and Syrian opposition flags during a protest against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in Kafranbel, near Idlib, April 26, 2013.

*** But not acting might be the worst option: Indeed, even the hawks are split about what to do when it comes to Syria. Do you institute the no-fly zone? Put U.S. boots on the ground? Arm the rebels (who could turn out to be another problem down the road)? And this was the cloud hanging over the dedication of the Bush library yesterday -- the American public probably doesn’t have the stomach about intervening (one way or another) in a foreign civil war. But as Jeffrey Goldberg writes, the Obama administration not acting might be the worst consequence of all. “There are no good choices -- good outcomes in Syria are impossible to imagine. But if it is proved to a certainty that Assad is trying to kill his people with chemical weapons, then Obama may have no choice but to act, not only because he has put the country’s credibility on the line … but also because the alternative -- allowing human beings to be murdered by a monstrous regime using the world’s most devilish weapons, when he has the power to stop it -- is not a moral option for a moral man.” And Goldberg recalls this line that Obama said when he was a senator: “What I don’t want to see happen is for Iraq to become an excuse for us to ignore misery or human-rights violations or genocide.”

*** Obama sells immigration reform at the Bush library: Speaking of yesterday’s dedication of the Bush library, perhaps the biggest news -- other than Barbara Bush saying that the country has had enough Bushes in the Oval Office -- was Obama selling immigration reform by invoking George W. Bush’s legacy. “I am hopeful that this year, with the help of Speaker Boehner and some of the senators and members of Congress who are here today, that we bring it home -- for our families, and our economy, and our security, and for this incredible country that we love,” Obama said. “And if we do that, it will be in large part thanks to the hard work of President George W. Bush.” When you think about it, this was perhaps the largest Republican audience that Obama has ever addressed, and he put the prospects of immigration reform this way: “Passing immigration reform is just as much George W. Bush’s legacy as it is mine.” 

*** Business travelers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your frequent-flyer miles! NBC’s Kasie Hunt and Mike O’Brien report that the Senate last night passed a measure to give the FAA flexibility to prevent the air-traffic-controller furloughs and delayed flights across the country. “Senators unanimously approved the ‘Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013’ — a patch to fix the deep cuts that have furloughed air traffic controllers and delayed flights across the country… The House could take the bill up tomorrow and pass it with two-thirds support of that chamber.” So let’s get this straight: As soon as business travelers are inconvenienced for LESS THAN A WEEK, Congress takes action to fix the sequester. But where are the fixes to the sequester cuts to programs benefiting the poor, like Head Start? The White House, which said it will sign the fix into law, made that very point even as it showed no stomach for this fight. “We hope Congress will find the same sense of urgency and bipartisan cooperation to help the families who have had children kicked out of Head Start, the seniors who have lost access to Meals On Wheels, the hard-working employees who have been laid off due to defense cuts, and the 750,000 Americans who have lost a job or won't find one because of the sequester.” The lesson here: Congress will act, but only if it and its friends are hurt or simply inconvenienced. That’s a devastating indictment on how Washington works.

*** Our weekly 2016 round-up: On Thursday, the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library featured two potential 2016 attendees: Hillary Clinton (who gave her first paid speech the day before) and Jeb Bush (whose mother said there were already enough Bush presidents)… Marco Rubio starred in a new TV ad by GOP supporters of comprehensive immigration reform… On Wednesday, Joe Biden delivered a moving speech at a memorial for the slain MIT police officer… His wife, Jill, has a new Twitter account… Rand Paul said the Boston bombings should put immigration reform on hold, and he also appeared to flip-flop on drones… Paul Ryan championed immigration reform… And Martin O’Malley, in Israel, talked about his 2016 intentions. “I plan for the latter half of this year to dedicate some more thought time — reflection time — to the question of whether or not I would run in 2016,” he said. O’Malley also gave Netanyahu a Joe Flacco jersey. 

*** Surprise, surprise -- Toomey’s approval rating goes up: We said Pat Toomey (R-PA) had a political motivation, looking ahead to 2016, to work on that background-check compromise with Joe Manchin (D-WV). “Though the background-check amendment co-sponsored by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., failed last week to earn enough votes to be adopted, Toomey's standing among Pennsylvania voters is now at the highest point of his three-plus-year term, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released on Friday,” National Journal’s Steven Shepard writes. Toomey’s approval is 48%/30%, up from 43%/32% before the background-check push in March; Sen. Bob Casey (D) gets a similar 48%/34% approval, the same as March; President Obama’s is split at 48%/48%, an improvement over his underwater 44%/51% approval last month.

*** Cuccinelli up on the air, McAuliffe’s car company remains in the news: In Virginia’s gubernatorial contest, Ken Cuccinelli (R) is up with his first TV ad of the race -- and it appears intended to soften the Republican’s image, especially with female voters. The ad, which will begin running on statewide TV on Monday, features his wife speaking to the camera. “I’m Teiro Cuccinelli. My husband Ken has spent his life standing up for the vulnerable and those in need,” she says. “He’s worked the night shift at a homeless shelter, spent his college days leading efforts to prevent sexual assaults, and represented those suffering from mental illness. As attorney general, Ken fought to find and prosecute child predators and human traffickers. Virginia deserves a Governor who is experienced, principled, and honest. I think you’ll find that’s what Ken Cuccinelli is all about.” This new ad comes as the New York Times dives into the controversies surrounding the car company, GreenTech, formerly owned by Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe. “Documents have surfaced questioning his explanation for why he located the plant in Mississippi, not Virginia, including memos from Virginia officials expressing ‘grave doubts’ about his business model and suggesting its financing was a “visa-for-sale scheme” for Chinese investors.” 

*** One camp is trying to be likeable; the other isn’t: What ought to scare McAuliffe supporters is this: One campaign is trying to figure out how to be liked (Cuccinelli’s), and the other campaign isn’t trying or doesn’t know how (McAuliffe’s). Harry Wilson, a political scientist at Roanoke College, put it very well to the Times: “This may be the first time we don’t like our governor the day after the election.” But the question is: Which candidate is at least trying to be liked? But this story raises a larger question. What’s going on with the McAuliffe campaign? Is its strategy really just to sit back and then carpet-bomb Cuccinelli as out of touch and hope he can scrape by? Is that any way to win? Yes, it is. But is that any way to govern if you do actually win? No. Many Virginia Democrats are grumbling about the way McAuliffe is running this race (or the fact that Terry is their standard-bearer). What’s amazing is how much fear there is in the Virginia Democratic Party about challenging McAuliffe publicly on this. Of course, this isn’t fear of Terry as much as it is fear of the Clintons.  

*** UPDATE *** The McAuliffe campaign counters by saying it has focused mostly on a positive campaign thus far. "Terry has spent the last three months making front page news across Virginia by focusing on a positive message about making the Commonwealth better for business," spokesman Josh Schwerin says in an email to First Read. "Ken Cuccinelli has hidden from the public and been forced on defense over extreme statements on women's health, opposition to Social Security and an ongoing ethics scandals that have dominated the campaign since January."

*** On “Meet this Press” this weekend: NBC’s David Gregory interviews John McCain and Tony Blair. And the program has already released this excerpt from Blair on Bush: “Well I thought, it was great advertisement for America today by the way, you had five presidents including President Obama and all behaving with a sort of graciousness and a civility toward each other that I thought was fantastic and President Obama actually put his finger on it when he said, 'it's impossible to know George Bush and not like him,' so you know, often people say to me back home, they say, 'come on, you didn't like him really, did you?' And I say you can totally disagree with him but as a human being he is someone of immense character and genuine integrity, so, you can say- people have different views about decisions, but there's very few people who know him and don't like him and respect him as a person.”

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

Re-examining Bush… But will history -- especially when it comes to Iraq -- truly allow him to get a second look?... 2016 could give us an early answer… What the Bush library/museum displays (and what it doesn’t)… A stroll down Memory Lane: Looking back at Bush’s presidency… A handful of conservatives bring up the charge that Obama hasn’t kept the country safe… Obama fundraises last night -- before attending today’s library dedication and memorial for those in West, TX… Another example of the difficult time Boehner/Cantor have had in herding cats… And Congress to exempt itself from Obamacare?

Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

Former President George W. Bush participates in a signing ceremony inside the Freedom Hall for the joint use agreement between the National Archive and the George W. Bush Presidential Center on the campus of Southern Methodist University on April 24, 2013 in Dallas, Texas.

*** Re-examining Bush: Ex-presidents almost always get a second look. Long after the Vietnam War forced him to abandon his presidential re-election bid in 1968, Lyndon Johnson is now lionized (most recently by the New York Times) for his ability to twist arms. After the Cold War's end and David McCullough's popular book, Americans view Harry Truman more favorably than when he left office. And Bill Clinton -- who was dogged by impeachment, the Marc Rich pardon, and his contribution to his wife's defeat in 2008 -- is now enjoying his highest poll numbers in a very long time. So naturally, with the George W. Bush library being dedicated today, the re-examination of the nation's 43rd president is well underway. The Washington Post recently wrote about Bush’s rebounding poll numbers, though a recent NBC/WSJ poll found his fav/unfav numbers (35%-44%) relatively unchanged since 2010. And former Bush ’04 campaign manager Ken Mehlman argued that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and push for immigration reform is a GOP roadmap for better success with minority voters. But here’s the question to consider: Will history -- especially when it comes to Iraq -- truly allow Bush to get a second look?

*** Can he escape his Iraq legacy? To be sure, Bush supporters tout his accomplishments, such as the No Child Left Behind education law, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the Africa/AIDS work, and the Roberts-Alito appointments to the Supreme Court. Other events -- like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 financial crisis -- would have challenged any president. But it's the Iraq War that Bush will find hard to escape. After all, it was a war of choice that resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, the deaths of many more civilians, the destabilization of the Middle East (think Iran would be the threat it is today without the Iraq War?), and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 (who essentially campaigned against Bush in his two winning elections). More importantly, the war's primary justification -- Iraq having weapons of mass destruction -- turned out to be incorrect. “People will make their own judgment,” Bush told NBC’s Matt Lauer this morning on “TODAY,” adding: “Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision.” However, a Jan. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll found 59% of the public saying the Iraq War wasn’t worth it.

*** 2016 could hint at an answer: Perhaps a key test if history looks more kindly on Bush's presidency is the 2016 election. History's failed presidencies have tended to result in the opposition party going on a run in future presidential contests – think of the six Republican victories after James Buchanan, the five Democratic wins after Herbert Hoover, and the three-straight Republican victories after Jimmy Carter. So who wins in 2016 (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the GOP nominee?) could tell you something about Bush's legacy, at least from American voters. Another 2016 story to watch: Does brother Jeb Bush run? "If Jeb's last name was Brown instead of Bush, he'd probably be the front-runner for the Republican nomination," Haley Barbour told recently Politico. And does the ultimate GOP nominee run on something like Bush's "compassionate conservative" platform, or does the nominee run away from Bush as Romney did (remember, Bush was a no-show at the GOP convention, and Romney rarely invoked him on the campaign trail)? Speaking of 2016, don’t miss former First Lady Barbara Bush saying on “TODAY” she DOESN’T want her son Jeb running. “We’ve had enough Bushes.” Leave it to Mama Bush -- the straightest of straight talkers -- to make the unpredictable news of the morning here. She’s legendary inside the family for telling it like it is and not hiding her true feelings well in public. And, well, she did it again. The official line from George W. and Laura about Jeb is “run” -- they have not even hesitated when asked.

*** What the museum displays (and what it doesn’t): What’s striking for those of us who have been able to tour the new Bush library and museum is that there is no dedicated section on Iraq; instead, the war is discussed as part of the “global war on terror.” What’s more, former Vice President Dick Cheney and top political strategist Karl Rove have almost no presence in the library, despite being two of the most consequential actors in the Bush administration. What is clear is the presence of former First Lady Laura Bush, however. This isn’t just the George W. Bush Library; it’s the George W. and Laura Bush Library. It’s folks Laura respected from the Bush team who are featured in the library -- from Condi Rice to folks like Andy Card and Josh Bolten.

*** A stroll down Memory Lane: Per NBC’s Sarah Blackwill, here are some of the more memorable quotes from Bush’s eight years in the White House:
Jan. 20, 2001: “America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise.” (First inaugural address)
Sept. 14, 2001: I can hear you! I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who ... knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. (Bush at WTC site)
Jan. 28, 2003: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (2003 State of the Union)
May 1, 2003: Officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, My fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (“Mission Accomplished” event)
Nov. 3, 2004: “Laura and I wish Senator Kerry and Teresa and their whole family all our best wishes. America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens.” (Election Night 2004)
Nov. 4, 2004: “Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it.” (Press conference after re-election victory)
Jan. 20, 2005: “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.” (Second inaugural address.)
Sept. 2, 2005: “Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.'' (After Hurricane Katrina)
Jan. 10, 2007: “So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” (Announcing Iraq surge)

*** A handful of conservatives bring up the charge that Obama hasn’t kept the country safe: Given the Bush library dedication and given the news out of Boston last week, maybe we should have braced ourselves for a handful of conservatives arguing that the Obama administration is “failing” to keep the country safe from terrorists. But do leaders of the GOP really want to have this argument? This could get ugly -- fast. Here was freshman Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the House floor yesterday: “In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero!” Conservative writer Jennifer Rubin has made a similar point. “Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.” (Note the words “after 9/11” from both Cotton and Rubin.) Interestingly, when Lauer asked Bush today whether the country was safer, the former president answered in the affirmative, but he added, “People on the homeland are aware that we are not completely secure.” Until “hopelessness” has been eradicated, Bush said, “we’ll still be vulnerable.” The most serious of security folks have said for years (since 9/11) that the hardest attack to prevent is the lone wolf. Don’t be surprised if some of the more senior GOP folks denounce this line of attack on Obama.

*** Obama fundraises … then hits the Bush library and service for those killed in West, TX: Meanwhile, are we the only ones surprised that Obama decided to hit a fundraiser in Dallas last night before attending today’s Bush library dedication (where he speaks at 11:00 am ET) and then the memorial service for those who died in West, TX (at 3:15 pm ET)? It’s an odd tone.

*** Another example of the difficult time Boehner/Cantor have had in herding cats in the House: “Republican leaders in the House of Representatives on Wednesday withdrew a bill that would change the Obama administration's healthcare law amid conservative concerns that the legislation was replacing one big government program with another,” Reuters writes. “The House cleared the way to debate the bill, which was designed to help Americans with pre-existing medical conditions while preventing the administration from using an alternate source of funding to implement its healthcare law. But the ‘Helping Sick Americans Now’ bill was pulled from the schedule before members could cast their votes, suggesting that Republican leaders did not have enough support from their own members. Democrats called the bill a political ploy by the Republicans.”

*** Congress to exempt itself from Obamacare? And finally, if this Politico story is true, we’d imagine Congress' approval ratings will sink even lower (if that's possible). “Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.” NBC’s Kasie Hunt says that this all comes down to whether Capitol Hill’s employer (i.e., the federal government) can subsidize health-care costs for their employees like most businesses do. All of this might be irrelevant because the Office of Personnel Management still hasn't made a key ruling about whether the government is allowed to continue providing subsidies to federal employees. If they rule that it's allowed, the talks aren't necessary.

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

NBCNews.com’s Tom Curry: “With its dedication set for Thursday in Dallas, the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum is about to join an impressive collection of institutions which commemorate the nation's former commanders in chief. These libraries -- now 13 in all -- cost taxpayers $75 million to operate in the last fiscal year.” While the libraries are built with private funds initially, they are then “turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to be operated with a mix of private and public money.”

Politico: “The one duty we owe to history, said Oscar Wilde, is to rewrite it. Four years after leaving office, the history of George W. Bush’s presidency is being rewritten — ever-so-slowly, and not yet in ways that fundamentally challenge popular understandings of the man and his tenure.”

George W. to his brother on ABC: “He doesn’t need my counsel because he knows what it is: Run! Whether he does or not is an incredibly personal decision.”

Former First Lady Barbara Bush, though, said on “TODAY” that she doesn’t want her son to run. "He's by the far the best qualified man, but no,” she said, adding, “We've had enough Bushes.”

Asked what she misses about the White House, she said, “not one darn thing!"

On CBS, he said he was impressed with how immigration reform’s going: “The problem with an issue like immigration is that there are a lot of moving parts. And a single moving part can end up disturbing a lot of people. And sometimes people focus on the moving parts as opposed to the whole. But I hope they get something done. And I’m impressed by the efforts thus far to get something done.”

NBCNews.com’s Michael O’Brien: “The [George W. Bush] library dedication offers Bush loyalists an opportunity to highlight what they see as the positive legacy of his eight years in office. But even among supporters, there is a sense of resignation that he won’t win the kind of historical vindication that once seemed assured.”

Said Ari Fleischer: “I’m increasingly doubtful, just because I think the lens of history is not changing. A lot of us used to say President Bush will look good and he’ll be vindicated in the public eye. But realistically speaking, I don’t see a lot of the people who write history all of a sudden changing their mind about George W. Bush.”

To that point… “Nearly 60 percent of the historians and political scientists in a 2006 Siena College survey rated George W. Bush’s presidency a failure -- an unscientific sampling that echoed public dismay over Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war,” Jill Lawrence writes. “Adding insult to injury, two-thirds of the 744 respondents said he did not have a realistic chance of improving his standing. … The former Texas governor was rated one of the nation’s five worst presidents—39^th of 43—in a Siena College ranking by 238 presidential scholars in 2010. He was a marginally better 36^th in a 2009 C-SPAN ranking by 64 students of the presidency.”

Lawrence points to Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower as presidents whose images were greatly rehabilitated after they left office. But this will be tough to get around for Bush: “It is possible that documents and archives will reveal Bush in a more positive light, but there’s no getting around the fact that his decisions on Iraq and on fiscal policy have led to huge problems. He not only committed U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 9/11, his decision to invade Iraq kicked off a 10-year war of choice that has destabilized the Middle East and drained the United States of blood, treasure, and the will to intervene abroad. He cut taxes across the board and borrowed money to pay for the wars as well as a new prescription-drug program for seniors. That led to a ballooning deficit and debt, and left the country ill-positioned to deal with the Great Recession that set in toward the end of his term.”

Bush-Cheney’s not exactly a love fest nowadays. Check out Bush’s response on his former vice president to CSPAN.

“I really don’t miss Washington,” Bush said, adding, “So while we’ve got friends in Washington I’m not all that friendly to Washington.”

Former President George W. Bush has returned to the news -- in both big and small ways.

He's a brand-new grandfather after his daughter Jenna gave birth to a baby girl.

He recently gave a wide-ranging interview to the Dallas Morning News, in which he reflected on his two terms in the White House. “Much of my presidency was defined by things that you didn’t necessarily want to have happen,” he said, citing the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

More controversially, a new nonpartisan report concludes that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the United States practiced torture and that "the nation's highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it," the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

And next week, he'll make a public appearance -- along with the other living presidents, past and present -- at the dedication of his presidential library in Dallas, Texas on April 25.

But as Bush is back, the same can't be said of his overall popularity.

According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, conducted April 5-8, 35 percent of Americans view him favorably, versus 44 percent who view him negatively.

Those numbers are virtually unchanged from the five other NBC/WSJ polls that have measured Bush since the summer of 2010, although they're an improvement from when he left office (31 percent fav/58 percent unfav).

Indeed, out of the six public figures the current NBC/WSJ poll measured -- including President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and New York City Michael Bloomberg -- Bush had the worst net fav/unfav score.

Yet buried inside Bush's poll numbers is a striking finding: He fares well among the demographic groups that have favored Republicans, including defeated 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and he performs poorly among the demographic groups with whom Republicans have struggled.

The subgroups that have a net-positive view of Bush are Republicans (65 percent favorable/14 percent unfavorable), conservatives (60 percent/19 percent), seniors (48 percent/31 percent), rural Americans (43 percent/35 percent), Southerners (43 percent/37 percent), and whites (40 percent/39 percent).

But he is deeply unpopular among most other subgroups, including the biggest parts of Obama’s coalition -- 18-34 year olds (26 percent/46 percent), African Americans (19 percent/64 percent), and Latinos (27 percent/44 percent). In fact, Bush’s worst age group is the 18 to 34 year old, and his best are seniors.

He also has a net-negative with the swing demographic groups: suburban residents (37 percent/41 percent) and independents (30 percent/45 percent).

And while Bush has a net-positive rating in the South, he’s negative everywhere else: Northeast (30 percent/53 percent), Midwest (32 percent/46 percent), and West (32 percent/42 percent).

In other words, if you want more evidence of the Republican Party’s demographic strengths -- and demographic weaknesses -- look no further than these poll numbers.

In the early jockeying for the 2016 presidential race, one of Sen. Marco Rubio’s, R-Fla., major selling points is that he brings diversity and can expand the party’s influence with Hispanic voters, especially after the shellacking the GOP took with the demographic group in 2012.

Unlike other Republicans, Hispanics view Rubio more positively than negatively -- 23 percent viewed him favorably while 12 percent viewed him negatively, according to an oversample of 300 Latinos in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll. Another 40 percent either did not know him or had no opinion.

Of course, elections are choices, and a potential major obstacle for Rubio in 2016 could be Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run. The former secretary of state, New York senator, and first lady of a popular former Democratic president, was the most popular politician among Hispanics in the poll.

Barack Obama is still very popular with the group -- he has a 62 percent job approval, for example, when Americans at large gave him just a 47 percent rating. And he has a sky-high 64 percent positive, 19 percent negative rating with Hispanics.

But Clinton is even more popular. She’s viewed positively by 65 percent of Hispanics with just 13 percent giving her a negative rating.

In the Sept. 2012 NBC/WSJ poll, Mitt Romney was also viewed positively by 23 percent of Hispanics, but he had a 53 percent negative rating. He wound up losing 71 percent of Hispanics, one of the fastest-growing groups in the country who made up 10 percent of the electorate in 2012.

That was the worst showing by a Republican presidential candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 -- and Hispanics were half the size of the electorate than they were last year.

Hispanics are largely undecided about Rubio, but he starts off positive, and there’s room to for him to grow.

“Senator Rubio has impressive name identification for a first-term U.S. Senator with roughly six out of ten Hispanic/Latinos who recognize his name and a solid 23% positive versus 12% negative rating,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. “Among Hispanics 40-years-old and older, his positive/negative numbers improve to 32%/13%. Compellingly, he maintains a modest net positive even among Hispanic Democrats (18% positive/15% negative).”

Still, the conservative Florida senator who speaks Spanish fluently and is a son of Cuban immigrants, faces some obvious challenges.

Hispanics, though somewhat socially conservative, tend to be economically liberal, view the Republican Party negatively, and largely line up with Democrats on a range of issues, from guns to immigration.

On immigration, Rubio faces a tricky test in the next few months. He is helping to shepherd comprehensive legislation through Congress with a principal task of selling it to conservatives, especially when it comes to a path for citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally.

Many conservatives, especially in the House and in the grassroots rank and file, are staunchly opposed to a path for citizenship.

Four-in-five Hispanics, on the other hand, are in favor of one. So, as Rubio tries to make the sell to conservatives and get something through they can support, he’s also going to have to convince Latinos, who are closely watching the immigration debate, that what he pushes for will be strong enough.

It’s also not clear how Rubio’s Cuban heritage would play or if it would matter – 51 percent of Hispanics in the poll said they were of Mexican descent versus just 4 percent who said they had Cuban roots. Another 16 percent said their families hail from Central and South America, and 8 percent were from Puerto Rico.

By the way, former President George W. Bush’s time away from the spotlight has done him some good with Hispanics. But he is still overwhelmingly viewed negatively (44 percent negative versus 29 percent positive). But both numbers are improvements from 2008 at the tail end of his presidency. In September 2008, just 21 percent of Hispanics had a positive impression of him versus 68 percent, who had a negative one.

On the issues, Hispanics continue to be more in line with Democrats than Republicans -- 56 percent identified as Democrats and just 20 percent identified as Republicans.

On gun restrictions, Hispanics are more liberal than other Americans with 70 percent believing laws on guns sales should be stricter. Just 55 percent of all adults believed the same.

On the budget, about half of Hispanics -- 49 percent -- think the sequester will have no impact on them or their families, lower than the 58 percent of all Americans who said so.

More Hispanics -- 41 percent -- said they believe the sequester cuts will hurt the economy rather than help. But, interestingly, three-in-10 think the spending cuts are a good thing and would help the economy. That’s nearly double that of all adults who said the same -- 16 percent.

Some interesting demographic notes:

- 56 percent of Hispanics identified as Democrats and just 20 percent identified as Republicans.
- Yet, just 23 percent identify themselves as liberal and 38 percent identify as conservatives, which is similar to the split among all Americans – 25 percent liberal, 26 percent conservative.
- Of all Americans, 44 percent identified as Democrats, 35 percent as Republicans.
- 51 percent of Hispanics say they have at least some college education versus 72 percent of the rest of Americans.

The oversample of 300 Hispanics or Latinos was conducted as part of the larger NBC/WSJ poll from April 5-8. It has a margin of error is +/- 5.7%.

Tenth anniversary of the Iraq war is a reminder how consequential of a political event it was… RNC releases its “autopsy” on the 2012 election… But what if the policies -- and not the messaging -- are contributing to the GOP’s brand problems?... Cook: GOP redistricting might have been short-term winner, but long-term loser… Obama to pick Tom Perez for Labor secretary… Recapping CPAC… And Mark Sanford’s first (and easier) test.

*** A consequential anniversary: It's another busy week in American politics. At an event this morning beginning at 8:00 am ET, the Republican National Committee is releasing its “autopsy” on the 2012 elections and its recommendations going forward. Tomorrow, President Obama departs for his four-day trip to Israel and the Middle East, and South Carolina holds its primaries (featuring Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert Busch) to fill the state’s vacant congressional seat. But in our eyes, the biggest story this week is Tuesday’s 10^th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. Why? Because when you look back on it, the Iraq war is the most consequential political event of the past 10 years -- and probably beyond. The war (and especially its growing unpopularity) is one of the chief reasons why Barack Obama is in the White House; it explains how Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and how they expanded their gains two years later; and it was the issue that damaged George W. Bush’s second term and post-presidential legacy (at least so far). And the damage the war did to the Republican brand is something from which the GOP still hasn’t fully recovered. Indeed, a Jan. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll found that 59% of Americans don’t believe the Iraq war was worth it -- a percentage that has continued to grow since 2003. And a new Gallup poll finds 53% of Americans saying it was a mistake.

Maya Alleruzzo / AP

In this July 9, 2008 file photo, U.S. Army soldiers from Charlie Battery, Fires Squadron, Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment prepare to search a classroom as they occupy a school during Operation Fires Festung in Qubah, north of Baghdad in Iraq's volatile Diyala province.

*** And a big political story: Of course, Iraq is much more than a political story. It’s a story about lives lost and money spent, about the change in the balance of power in the Middle East (there is no doubt that Iran is stronger post-Saddam Hussein than it was before), about whether the Bush administration was honest with the American people why the country went to war, and about how the U.S. is now much more hesitant to intervene abroad (see Libya and Syria). But its effect on American politics can’t be understated, even 10 years later. Without Iraq, there would be no President Obama. He rode Iraq to the nomination, making it the most important distinction he had with Hillary Clinton. Shoot, John Kerry isn’t the nominee in 2004 were it not for Iraq and the Democrats’ urgency at the time to find someone with war credentials as their standard-bearer. Iraq changed a lot in American politics. And that’s why the anniversary is important.

*** RNC releases its “autopsy” on the 2012 election: The discussion of Iraq is instructive as the RNC releases its recommendations after the party’s electoral losses in 2012. The reason: The policies a party pursues still matter -- a lot. The RNC’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” proposes plenty of intriguing reforms such as spending $10 million hiring paid staff to do better outreach to minority communities; cutting down on the number of presidential debates; recommending to hold its convention before August (so the nominee can tap into general-election funds earlier); and hiring a chief digital and technology officer to close the GOP’s technology gap. What’s more, the report recommends that GOP candidates do a better job of communicating. "To be clear, our principles are sound," RNC Chair Reince Priebus is expected to say in his remarks. "But the report notes the way we communicate our principles isn't resonating widely enough. Focus groups described our party as 'narrow minded,' 'out of touch,' and 'stuffy old men.' The perception that we're the party of the rich continues to grow."

*** But what if it’s the policies -- and not the messaging? Yet here’s the question to chew on: What if the policies are also contributing to the GOP’s brand problems? The party wants to spend millions on minority outreach. But you could also argue that the GOP’s past opposition to Obamacare and immigration reform, as well as its pursuit of voting laws that impact minority communities, has been just as significant to its performance with these voters. The party wants to limit the number of debates. But was the number the problem in 2012, or was it more the substance and policies being discussed (for example, all the candidates rejecting a 10-to-1 deal on cuts to revenues)? And the party wants to change the perception that it’s the party of the rich. But just this week, the GOP-controlled House is expected to vote on the Ryan budget plan, which gives the wealthy a significant tax cut while cutting programs that benefit the poor. After all, don’t forget these exit-poll results from the 2012 presidential election: A combined 60% of voters said tax rates should go up either for all Americans or for those making more than $250,000, and 59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. And we have one final question: How much of this is fighting the last war? Sure, limiting the number of debates and holding a convention in July seems smart after what happened in 2012. But don’t forget, John Kerry and the Democrats in ’04 still lost after holding few debates and a July convention.  

*** GOP’s redistricting was a short-term winner, but what about the long term? As the RNC says it will spend $10 million to do better outreach with minority and younger-vote communities, Charlie Cook made a striking observation over the weekend: Republicans, through redistricting, protected their members in 2012 but boxed themselves into mostly white congressional districts. “[Republicans] clearly did everything they could to purge Democratic voters from their districts ahead of 2012, no matter whether those voters were white, black, Hispanic, left-handed, or right-minded—just as Democrats would have done had the roles been reversed. But in the process of quarantining Democrats, Republicans effectively purged millions of minority voters from their own districts, and that should raise a warning flag. By drawing themselves into safe, lily-white strongholds, have Republicans inadvertently boxed themselves into an alternate universe that bears little resemblance to the rest of the country?” Just where is the RNC going to be able to test run this new outreach? A handful of gubernatorial races perhaps? Maybe a Senate race or two? Having the ability to test run in House districts would get them farther, faster, but that isn’t going to happen.

*** Obama picks Perez for Labor: President Obama today will announce he’s nominating Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez to be his next Labor secretary, replacing Hilda Solis. Politico has more: “Perez’s confirmation hearings are expected to feature more questions about a scathing inspector general’s report released last week that revealed internal racial hostilities in the Civil Rights Division and found Perez gave misleading public testimony when he said in 2010 that political appointees did not make the decisions to drop prosecution of New Black Panther Party members. Senate Republicans will also likely question Perez about his decision not to join a False Claims Act case against the city of St. Paul, Minn. Republicans have claimed the lawsuit could have won up to $180 million for the federal government.”

*** Recapping CPAC: As we reported over the weekend, Rand Paul narrowly won the CPAC presidential straw poll, getting 25% of the vote to Marco Rubio’s 23%. Following them were Rick Santorum at 8%, Chris Christie (who wasn’t invited to speak) at 7%, Paul Ryan at 6%, and Scott Walker at 5%. And don’t miss Kasie Hunt’s eight takeaways from the CPAC confab

*** Sanford’s first (and easier) test: Due to his name ID, former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is expected to finish first in tomorrow’s GOP primary to fill the state’s vacant congressional seat. But that will be the easy part for him. Roll Call: “Sanford … faces 15 other Republicans on the primary ballot for the special election to represent the coastal, GOP-leaning seat. He is all but certain to come in first, but taking less than 50 percent of votes cast. That will send Sanford, a former three-term congressman, to an April runoff with another Republican. GOP insiders see the top contenders for nabbing that second-place slot as: attorney Curtis Bostic, state Sen. Larry Grooms, former state Sen. John Kuhn, state Rep. Chip Limehouse and economics teacher Teddy Turner, the son of media mogul Ted Turner. But with so many candidates in the race, the margin for coming in second is small. Voter turnout predictions range from 30,000 to 35,000, which means anything is possible.”

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 @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush were back at the White House on Thursday for the unveiling of their official portraits.

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama welcomed their predecessors to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for an event devoid of partisanship, setting aside the political differences between the two administrations.

“Mr. President, thank you for your warm hospitality. Madam First Lady, thank you so much for inviting our rowdy friends to my hanging," Bush said to laughter before an audience that included his two daughters, a number of former aides and his mother and father, former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush.

Bush's laugh line was just one of many lighter moments in a ceremony that might have otherwise had the potential for awkwardness, given the frequency with which Obama often says his successor's policies are to blame for the nation's current woes.

Obama didn't shy away from addressing one of the biggest shared issue of their presidencies: the economic crisis that took hold in 2008.

“Over those two and a half months, in the midst of that crisis, President Bush, his Cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today went out of your ways -- George, you went out of your way, to make sure that the transition to a new administration was as seamless as possible,” Obama said.

Charles Dharapak / AP

President Barack Obama gestures toward former President George W. Bush, former first lady Laura Bush and first lady Michelle Obama, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, May 31, 2012, during a ceremony where the Bush's portraits were unveiled.

And Obama gave Bush his due for their shared role in hunting down Osama bin Laden:

“That's why my first call, once American forces were safely out of harm's way, was to President Bush because protecting our country is neither the work of one person nor the task of one period of time. It's an ongoing obligation that we all share.”

Any of the weightier matters were dispelled, though, by Bush's laugh-out-loud performance. He started off saying how pleased he was that the White House portrait collection now begins and ends with a "George W." (or George Washington).

“When the British burned the White House ... in 1814, Dolly Madison famously saved this portrait of the first George W. Now Michelle, if anything happens, there's your man,” Bush joked. (During her speech, First Lady Michelle Obama promised she’d go straight for his portrait.)

And former President Bush didn’t spare the current president: “I am also pleased, Mr. President, that when you are wandering these halls as you wrestle with tough decisions, you will now be able to gaze at this portrait and ask: What would George do?"

The event was somewhat of a family affair; at least 14 members of the Bush clan were on hand for the official unveiling of the portraits, which were done by artist John Howard Sanden.

Noting everyone assembled, Bush joked upon introducing Laura: “It is my privilege to introduce the greatest first lady ever. Sorry, Mom. Would you agree to a tie?”

Laura Bush didn’t miss a beat, either.

"It was really gracious of you to invite us back to the White House to hang a few family pictures. And I'm sure you know nothing makes a house a home like having portraits of its former occupants staring down at you from the wall,” the former first lady said.

Bush’s portrait, which was completed in 2011, depicted him standing in the Oval Office; Laura Bush’s portrait has her in the Green Room. The former first lady’s portrait was finished early this year. Bush 43’s portrait will hang down a hall from his father’s portrait in the White House, a point that made for a poignant moment.  “I am honored to be hanging near a man who gave me the greatest gift possible: unconditional love. And that would be number 41,” he said, to sustained applause.