A bipartisan House group says it has reached a deal in principle on its version of comprehensive immigration reform.

"The bipartisan group working on #immigration in House has made a deal in principle" Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart tweeted late Thursday after the eight members met.

That's good news for immigration advocates, who feared that the years-long work of the House group would break apart over disputes involving the parameters of a mandatory E-Verify system and other issues. While the Senate Gang of Eight bill remains the more high-profile template for final immigration legislation, a breakdown in House negotiations wouldn't have been a positive sign for the progress of compromise immigration measures in the House.

Things didn't look good earlier this week, with one Republican in the group saying he was likely to leave if a resolution wasn't reached.

House Speaker John Boehner said earlier Thursday that he was "concerned" that the group - which includes four Republicans and four Democrats - was still hung up without a deal.

"I am concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work, there are very difficult issues they're working on," he said. "But I continue believe the House needs to do something and I believe works it will, how we get there, we'll see."

This story was originally published on Thu May 16, 2013 7:36 PM EDT

Kicking off a first day of edits to comprehensive immigration reform legislation, lawmakers on a key Senate panel grappled Thursday over efforts to secure the nation’s borders and prevent a new wave of illegal entrants.

As expected, Democrats on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee were joined by two Republican members of the bipartisan Gang of Eight in opposing the most stringent border security amendments offered by opponents of the bill, ranging from a massive influx of boots on the ground at the nation’s southern border to delays to the program that would make undocumented immigrants eligible for a probationary legal status.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (C) confers with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (R) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (L) during the Senate Judiciary Committee's markup for the immigration reform bill on Capitol Hill May 9, 2013 in Washington, DC.

But the panel also adopted a total of 21 amendments, including eight proposed by Republicans. Those included measures to beef up oversight of the legislation’s implementation, offer greater flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds for technology and infrastructure, and include private landowners in a task force consulting on border security. The panel also accepted an amendment by ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley that would widen the areas subject to border security strategies beyond the most high-risk sectors.

In the seventh hour of negotiations otherwise largely devoid of fireworks, frustrated foes of the legislation lamented the defeat of seven GOP amendments throughout the day.

“The Gang stuck together – as we’d been told they would – on anything that significantly impacted their legislation that they drafted with their friends,” said leading opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  

“The committee has consistently rejected any attempts to put real teeth in this bill to secure the border,” alleged Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. “And if it doesn’t have real border security, in my opinion, this bill will not pass.”

Throughout the day, bipartisan drafters of the legislation emphasized their belief that the original legislation has tough border security measures and noted that they are open to improvements.

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin, a member of the Gang of Eight, said opponents were wrong to accuse the committee of “stiff-arming” suggestions from GOP members.

 “We’ve accepted eight Republican amendments,” he said. “We’re open to good ideas from both sides.”

A frustrated Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the bipartisan drafting group,  suggested that Cruz and other foes of the bill decry the “false issue” of inadequate border security while working to cut the legislation’s centerpiece provision to offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The dispute spotlighted tensions in the committee as proponents of reform reject amendments intended to upset the legislation’s delicate compromises without appearing close-minded to legitimate efforts to improve the bill.

Republican Gang of Eight members Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham were joined by Orrin Hatch in voting down a Cruz-sponsored measure that would have tripled the amount of agents on patrol and quadrupled resources like drones and helicopters at the border.

Opponents of that amendment said it would be both prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily at a time when the number of border patrol agents is at an all-time high; it failed five votes to thirteen.

The panel also rejected a Grassley amendment that would have delayed the process of making undocumented immigrants eligible to apply for provisionary legal status until the Department of Homeland Security demonstrated “effective control” of the southern border for six months.

Gang of Eight members argued that waiting to make undocumented immigrants come forward would ultimately delay the implementation of other components of reform – like a workplace-verification system – and would therefore hurt the bill’s larger goal of preventing more illegal immigration.

“I think it would be the wrong approach to delay bringing people out of the shadows,” said Flake.

By the same margin, the committee voted down a measure proposed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that would have required fast-track congressional approval of the Department of Homeland Security’s border security plan before undocumented immigrants could apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who does not serve on the Judiciary panel but is a crucial Republican supporter of the bill, said in a statement that he is "encouraged" by the process so far.

"There’s still a long way to go, but I am encouraged that we are witnessing a transparent and deliberate process to accept input to improve this legislation," he said.

The panel’s markup process will continue next Tuesday.

Related stories:

• Immigration reform's enemies, allies prep for battle
• Conservative group pegs cost of 'path to citizenship' at $6.3T

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 6:34 PM EDT

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

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

View full poll results here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama dips his toes in the ’14 waters… WH on guns: Let’s make a deal… Obama to give up 5% of his pay as sequester takes effect; who else will follow?... GOP’s return to social issues: Priebus hits Planned Parenthood, Cuccinelli defends anti-sodomy statute… And SENATE MADNESS enters the Elite 8.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama looks out as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (in red) points out toward the ocean during a Democratic fund raiser at the home of billionaire former asset manager Tom Steyer in San Francisco April 3, 2013.

*** Obama dips his toes in the 2014 waters: In his first events for the still-developing 2014 midterm cycle, President Obama hit a pair of fundraisers last night in California for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Mindful of all the GOP concern that Obama’s main focus is politics and the ’14 midterms (see the questions he received at that House GOP conference meeting just a few weeks ago), Obama went out of his way to emphasize the need to work with Republicans on guns, immigration, and the budget. “Look, my intention here is to try to get as much done with the Republican Party over the next two years as I can, because we can’t have perpetual campaigns,” he said at one of the fundraisers.  “I am looking to find areas of common ground with Republicans every single day.” But he also told the attendees that he wants to help Pelosi become speaker again. “I want her once again as a fully empowered partner for us to be able to move our agenda forward.” Obama put it more bluntly at the second fundraiser. “I would be dishonest if I didn’t say that it would be a whole lot easier to govern if I had Nancy Pelosi as speaker.

*** Why Obama had to start these fundraisers so early: Despite Obama’s insistence that he wants to work with Republicans on guns, immigration, etc., don’t be surprised if GOPers focus on WHERE he was not WHAT he said. If it had its druthers, we’re guessing the White House would have preferred to hold off on some fundraising for a bit. But there’s another reason why Obama agreed to these early funders.  The president had his own intra-party politics to worry about which. Some House and Senate Dems are nervous the president is more focused on raising money for Organizing for Action rather than help the party, so this is an attempt to quiet down those critiques. Also, the Obama campaign gave the DCCC and DSCC virtually no financial help in 2012, and the folks on Capitol Hill noticed. Today, Obama remains in California, where he hits two more fundraisers -- this time for the Democratic National Committee. 

*** Let’s make a deal: Speaking of that balance between Obama being his party’s leader but also a president who wants to sign bipartisan legislation, the White House signaled yesterday that it’s willing accept any kind of compromise on gun background checks that it can get. “What the president wants to sign is the strongest gun bill he can sign,” White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer said a Politico-sponsored breakfast yesterday. “What we have to make sure is that whatever we do is better than current law.”   To us, that’s a clear message to someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), essentially saying: “Take what you can get from Tom Coburn or any other Republican and just pass it.” It’s not every day the White House signals he’ll sign just about anything, as long as there is the smallest incremental improvement.  Sticking with the issue of guns, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy will sign his state’s gun-control legislation at noon ET, and Maryland appears poised to pass gun-control legislation, too. We said this earlier in the week and others are now picking up on it: While passing gun control might be a difficult feat in Washington, states (especially those controlled by Democrats) are having a much easier time.

*** Who else is going to give up their pay? In other White House-related news yesterday, we learned that Obama will return 5% of his salary to the U.S. Treasury at a time when other federal workers are being furloughed as part of the mandatory “sequester” cuts. This is purely a symbolic move by the president, but as the Washington Post’s Cillizza notes, it could put pressure on Republicans who are more than content that the sequester remains in place. How? For one thing, don’t be surprised if Obama’s action forces GOP leaders like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mitch McConnell if they also will return 5% of their salary to the U.S. Treasury. It’s a gambit, no doubt. But it’s a gambit that seemed to catch the GOP a bit off guard yesterday.

*** GOP’s return to social issues Remember when Republican elites were looking to downplay social issues (like gay marriage and abortion) as a way to broaden the party’s appeal? Well, as NBC’s Mike O’Brien writes, two high-profile Republicans in the last 24 hours were pushing hot-button social issues. RNC Chair Reince Priebus, whose “Growth and Opportunity Project” released last month recommended that the GOP be more “inclusive and welcoming,” wrote an op-ed in Red State blasting Planned Parenthood and accusing it of supporting “infanticide.” He wrote, “In the last election, Republicans were repeatedly asked about whether they supported cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. It’s time Democrats are asked whether they still support funding an organization that refuses to care for a newborn.” Folks, it’s not an accident that after the GOP has decided not to engage on gay marriage, the RNC chair is playing up abortion and Planned Parenthood. It looks like a way to appease social conservatives, who are still needed inside the GOP tent. However, the question is whether targeting abortion and Planned Parenthood is the best way to improve on the party’s struggles with female voters. But for now, realize this seems all about base politics with evangelicals.

*** Priebus hits Planned Parenthood, Cuccinelli takes on anti-sodomy statute: The other example yesterday of a high-profile Republican engaging on social issues came from Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli. The Washington Post: “Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has challenged a recent court ruling finding Virginia’s anti-sodomy law unconstitutional... A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled on March 12 that Virginia’s ‘Crimes Against Nature’ statute, which banned oral and anal sex, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One judge dissented, agreeing with a lower court that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas on sodomy laws applied only to consenting adults. The case in question involved a teenage girl and a 47-year-old man, William Scott MacDonald, who was convicted of soliciting a minor to commit a felony.” Cuccinelli’s campaign maintains that the challenge is all about “protecting children from sexual predators,” but because the statute in question bans all oral and anal sex, critics charge that it’s anti-gay. Two points here: 1) If Cuccinelli had resigned as AG, he wouldn’t have to be dealing with cases like this; and 2) he still hasn’t made a pivot to jobs and the economy, a la Bob McDonnell. By the way, don’t miss this campaign video by GOP LG candidate Pete Snyder that hits Dem Terry McAuliffe. In this crowded LG field, the GOP candidates are looking for ways to separate from the pack (and from Cuccinelli).

*** Senate Madness -- yesterday’s results: In the 19^th Century, #1 Daniel Webster defeated #5 Sam Houston, and #3 Charles Sumner bested #2 John C. Calhoun… In the Mixed Era, #1 Henry Clay trounced #4 Robert La Follette, and #14 Scoop Jackson upset #2 Henry Cabot Lodge… In the 20^th Century, #1 LBJ beat #12 Richard Russell, and #11 Mike Mansfield edged #2 Everett Dirksen… And in the Modern Era, #1 Ted Kennedy triumphed over #5 Hubert Humphrey, and #2 Daniel Patrick Moynihan beat #11 Joe Biden.

*** Senate Madness -- the Elite 8: In today’s match ups, Daniel Webster squares off against Charles Sumner in the 19^th Century bracket, Henry Clay faces Scoop Jackson in the Mixed Era, LBJ goes toe to toe against Mike Mansfield in the 20^th Century bracket, and Ted Kennedy battles Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the Modern Era.

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

The Republican Party’s internal struggle over how to expand its reach will play out in stark relief at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, with activists locked in a near-civil war over the basic question of who should be part of the movement – and who should not.

This year’s meeting has already made news with its exclusion of notable names from the invite list: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. 

There will be plenty of conservative stars, like Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with 2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan (among other potential 2016 presidential candidates). And attendees will have a chance to reacquaint themselves with familiar names and faces from the not-so-distant past such as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and the ubiquitous Donald Trump.

But the annual conservative confab comes at a serious and crucial moment for the Republican Party: Its last two presidential nominees lost decisively to President Barack Obama, and its lone instrument of power -- the GOP majority in the House -- has been constantly plagued by infighting between conservative insurgents and its establishment-minded leadership.

And the American right seems as divided as ever over the path forward.

“I think, increasingly, we as Republicans have come across as intolerant and unfocused on the needs of the underserved,” said Fred Malek, a fixture of GOP politics for decades.

“And we need to speak much more to the aspirational needs of people, and not speak about the dependence of the ‘47 percent,’” he added, referencing 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s infamous comments, “but rather how the ‘47 percent’ become part of the 25 percent or 10 percent or 1 percent.”

Ideological fealty to marginalize GOP?
That internal struggle threatens to spill into the open at CPAC, a gathering that has been established as an important gathering for official Republicans, yet still attracts the kind of stalwart conservative activists who have helped to ignite this GOP family feud. 

“I thought it was a mistake to exclude Christie,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman who remains active in the party’s political leadership. “It reinforces this narrow, closed stereotype of Republicans.”

Christie angered conservatives by agreeing to implement insurance exchanges under Obama’s health care reform law, and for praising the president’s handling of Hurricane Sandy just days before the election. McDonnell upset conservatives with his new transportation law, which includes some new taxes.

“I would argue that they do not have too much to offer up in terms of the future of the conservative movement,” Jeff Bell, of the American Principles Project, said of the two governors.

Those warring views cut to the heart of the modern GOP’s internal rift. On one side are conservatives who are eager to excommunicate Republicans who commit the slightest act of ideological heresy. The other faction is composed of Republicans who worry that the party’s insistence on ideological fealty will continue to marginalize the GOP amid a changing electorate.

Though no immediate resolution is in sight, the Republican National Committee will weigh in following its own autopsy of the party’s shortcomings during last fall’s elections. It will recommend improved digital operations and a more robust outreach, but is also expected to emphasize the need for some candidates to speak in less shrill terms about sensitive issues.

“We can’t run the same campaigns. For some, it means that boneheaded comments about rape and women – that’s just not going to fly,” said a source familiar with the report, referencing GOP Senate candidates in Indiana and Missouri who lost winnable races last fall due to their controversial comments about rape.

Romney's first remarks since election
The forthcoming RNC report and this week’s CPAC gathering add up to a potentially pivotal week for the future of the party.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters file photo

Sen. Marco Rubio addresses the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, February 9, 2012.

And though McDonnell and Christie were excluded from the gathering, other corners of the GOP will be well-represented. Tea Party darlings like Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will each speak.

Also on display will be conservatives who may hope to unify the GOP as the party’s presidential nominee in 2016. Along with Rubio, Paul and Ryan, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will also address attendees.

The influential conference concludes with an oft-hyped, closely watched straw poll of attendees’ preference in a presidential nominee.

A past winner of two such straw polls, Romney, will make his first public speech since the election on Friday. And former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose national star power has waxed and waned in the scope of a single presidential election cycle, will speak on Saturday.

“There’s going to be a lot of heat, but not much light,” on the presidential front said Craig Shirley, a Reagan biographer and conservative PR guru. “It’s not going to resolve itself until the first stirrings of the 2014 midterm elections.”

Related:

On eve of CPAC, GOP searches for identity, policy principles

Obama's meeting with GOP: Cordial, but no consensus

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:31 AM EDT

Republicans on Tuesday debuted their full 2014 budget, an ambitious proposal that would seek to balance the budget within a decade, but which is also almost certain to never become law.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the Republican budget chief and 2012 vice presidential nominee, called his third budget an "invitation" to President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to begin bargaining toward a deal to balance the budget. 

"This is not only a responsible, reasonable, balanced plan," Ryan said, "it's also an invitation. This is an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats to come together to fix these problems."

But just as Obama has made new overtures to Ryan and other Capitol Hill Republicans in hopes of breaking the fiscal logjam in Congress, Ryan produced a new budget that offers up few concessions to Democrats, and doubles down upon many of the policies on which Republicans campaigned during last fall's election.

The new Ryan budget calls for repealing Obama's signature health care reform law, and sweeping changes to Medicare for anyone under the age of 54 -- familiar policies for which Republicans have aggressively pushed during the last two years. The budget's goal would be to eliminate all but two income tax brackets, one at 10 percent and the other at 25 percent; it would raise no new revenue through taxes, cutting against the president's own demands for additional revenue.

Click here for the full text of the budget (.pdf)

"While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn't add up," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

But the White House stopped short of waging a blistering assault on the Ryan plan, offering a glimmer of hope that bipartisanship might still eventually carry the day. 

"While the president disagrees with the House Republican approach, we all agree we need to leave a better future for our children," Carney said. "The president will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to grow the economy and cut the deficit in a balanced way."

Still, Ryan defended the generally unflinching conservatism of his budget.

"That means we surrender our principles? That means we stop believing in what we believe in?" he asked at a press conference to debut his proposals. "Elections do have consequences ... This is our offer, this is our vision."

The GOP proposal comes amid new overtures by Obama to Republicans in Congress. The president had lunch last week with Ryan, and dinner with a group of GOP senators. Obama will address House and Senate Republicans separately this week, marking a pivot in his strategy toward vexing fiscal issues following bruising battles over the fiscal cliff during the first two months of this year.

Related: Ryan plan sparks budget battle

This latest GOP plan -- the third authored by Ryan since Republicans retook the House in 2010 -- is the opening salvo in a spring full of budget battles, culminating in the mid-May expiration of the nation's borrowing authority. Congress authorized a suspension of the debt limit through that deadline, but made it contingent upon the House and Senate each passing their own budget. (Republicans have repeatedly needled Senate Democrats for failing to pass a budget in recent years.)

"I hate to break the suspense, but their budget won't balance—ever," Ryan wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. "We House Republicans have done our part … Now we invite the president and Senate Democrats to join in the effort."

Mandel Ngan / Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan makes his way to the West Wing on March 7, 2013 for a lunch with President Barack Obama.

Ryan's blueprint claims to achieve $4.6 trillion in savings over through 2023, and steadily reduce government spending as a share of gross domestic product in the meantime. In his op-ed, Ryan asserted the reforms could boost gross national product by as much as 1.7 percent.  Ryan's previous plan projected a balanced budget outside of ten years. 

But the plan also relies on savings accrued from two plans which Republicans had staunchly opposed: the new taxes on the wealthy in the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff deal, and the $715 billion in savings from cuts to Medicare providers as part of Obama's health care reform law. 

Of the new taxes, Ryan said that Republicans were "not going to re-fight the past." When pressed as to how that principle squares with his budget's goal of repealing Obamacare, Ryan pivoted, and said that the health reform law would be so onerous, that the eventual GOP replacement would be an improvement. 

It would achieve its goal through a series of sweeping reforms, most of which are unlikely to survive the Democratic Senate or a presidential veto threat.

Ryan's budget again seeks changes to Medicare, namely by establishing an exchange of private plans (including traditional Medicare) from which seniors could choose, with the assistance of a premium support voucher. The plan would apply for those under the age of 54 — a threshold one year younger than past Ryan proposals — and also employ means-testing, in which wealthier seniors pay a higher share of their premiums.

The Ryan budget also calls for repealing the health care reform law (though it would leave in place savings from cuts in payments to medical providers, a component against which Ryan and Mitt Romney railed during last fall's campaign).

Related: From continuing resolutions to budget blueprints: What you need to know about money wrangling

The campaign also focused heavily on Ryan's past budgets, as Obama and Democratic candidates downballot railed against similar proposed changes to entitlement programs. Those attacks offered a vivid illustration of the political difficulties in putting such aggressive reform plans to paper. That experience helped inform the GOP's demand that Democrats produce their own alternative budget, through which Republican staffers will surely comb to exploit politically.

Ryan's own budget isn't short on additional conservative prescriptions, either. The 2014 budget calls for sweeping tax reform, with a goal of cutting the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and simplifying the income tax into two brackets. The tax cuts would be financed by closing loopholes and deductions in the tax code.

The Republican budget will also touch upon other social programs. It would block-grant Medicaid to states, and allow states more flexibility, too, in implementing welfare programs. Ryan's plan would also freeze the current maximum support for students awarded as Pell Grants, a popular program with students (and young voters) that Obama had expanded in his first term.

The proposals, as a whole, amount to a deeply conservative set of proposals offered against the backdrop of new hopes for bipartisan fiscal talks in Washington.

Obama's renewed outreach — and Republicans' relatively warm reception of it — has stoked the embers of hope that lawmakers may finally reach the kind of grand fiscal deal that has eluded them during the past few years. As Ryan unveils his new budget, Obama's own reaction could either preserve these renewed hopes, or allow them to wither after just a few days.

To that end, Obama was set to speak to House Republicans on Wednesday, and Senate Republicans on Thursday. He was also scheduled to give an interview to ABC News on Tuesday, which could be his first on-camera reactions to Ryan's new proposal.

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:07 AM EDT

Hagel rollout went as well as planned, but still not an easy fight … Obama puts HIS team in place and is trying to make his mark on foreign policy … Poll shows better marks for Obama than Boehner in fiscal-cliff fight … the White House’s gun push takes shape and could be coming soon … Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly announce formation of group to counter the NRA … Bloomberg tries to assert mayoral influence, but how much does/should he have? … Christie ‘State of the State’ today to focus on Sandy … R.I.P. Richard Ben Cramer -- he had what it takes.

*** No margin for error in Hagel nomination: Yesterday’s official rollout of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary went about as well as it could have for the Obama White House. Statements of praise for Hagel by folks like Colin Powell and Robert Gates? Check. A statement of past praise from John McCain (who said in 2006 Hagel would make a “great secretary of state”), even though McCain is now taking a skeptical look at the nominee? Check. And getting Chuck Schumer, perhaps the Democratic senator with the most reservations about Hagel, to issue a non-committal statement? Check. So the White House feels pretty good about where things stand, although this won’t be an easy fight. Yet what Team Obama can’t afford is any new negative information, any other shoe to drop. Bottom line: There is no margin for error from this point onward. Hagel’s support, at best, in the Senate is an inch deep and that “inch” would get him the votes he needs. But it wouldn’t take much for the bottom to, well, fall out. This is going to be a precarious few weeks. Very few senators are in D.C. right now, so the interest groups will be front and center. Hagel needs his confirmation hearing sooner, rather than later, but right now, it’s unclear when those hearings will be scheduled. Hagel also needs FACE time with senators, and he won’t have that opportunity for a good week or so. 

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference with former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., in the East Room on Jan. 7, 2013.

*** Obama’s confidence -- 2009 vs. 2013: As we wrote yesterday, Obama is clearly projecting a level of confidence at the start of this second term than he did four years ago, in particular, on foreign policy. Just look at the initial comfort level with his picks for his second-term national security team (Hagel, John Kerry, John Brennan) vs. the first-term team (Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, Leon Panetta, Jim Jones). At the start of his first term, the president was no less confident about his foreign policy judgment but he made the calculation that he needed to placate the Washington establishment so he stuck with the Republican Gates at Defense, brought in Hillary to State, brought in a former general, Jim Jones, as his National Security Adviser. Gates and Clinton worked out, but Jones didn’t. 

*** Amplifying his views, using political capital: Now? The president is using his national security choices to amplify his views in a way that was missing four years ago. Kerry, Hagel, Brennan and keeping Tom Donilon as NSA (even potentially elevating Deputy NSA Denis McDonough to White House chief of staff) indicates the president is not just interested in running foreign policy out of the White House, but he wants to leave an Obama imprint on Defense, CIA, State etc. But it may be more than that -- Obama is displaying a confidence that he didn’t necessarily show after 2008. Much of this is what you get with a second-term president who got more than 51% of the popular vote (for the second-straight time). He may NOT be saying it the same way Bush did in 2004-05 after winning a second term, but he’s, so far, displaying the following notion: Obama believes he’s earned political capital, and he’s going to use it. 

*** Polling the concluded fiscal-cliff debate: Our first initial look at some polling post-Fiscal Cliff offers few surprises. According to a new Washington Post/ABC poll, American voters approve more of President Obama’s handling of the just-concluded debate over the fiscal cliff. “In the new survey, conducted after the House followed up a Senate vote by passing the measure, 53 percent of voters say they approve of the way Obama handled the matter, while 40 percent disapprove. The overall tally is clearly negative for Boehner’s performance: 30 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval.” For Boehner, that includes 52% of Republican voters who disapproved how he handled the negotiations. Meanwhile, a new Pew poll finds that 57% of adults “say that Obama got more of what he wanted from the tax legislation, while just 20% say Republican leaders got more of what they wanted. And while 48% approve of the way Obama handled the fiscal cliff negotiations only 19% approve of the way GOP leaders handled the negotiations.”

*** The White House and guns: Mark Glaze, the executive director of the Michael Bloomberg-backed Mayors Against Illegal Guns, chatted with First Read and NBC yesterday, saying that there were three proposals the White House could announce as part of its comprehensive package dealing with the aftermath of Newtown, CT. One, require background checks for ALL gun buys. (This actually has support from gun dealers and manufacturers, Glaze said, because it’s the private sale of guns that’s the big problem here.) Two, ban assault weapons and magazines. (If background checks are the easiest proposal to pass, then this might be the hardest.) Three, pass a federal anti-trafficking statute, making it a crime to be trafficking in guns. Glaze also said there were things the White House could do administratively -- like put an actual director at the ATF (either through Senate confirmation or recess appointment) and prosecute prohibited sellers (which he said the administration currently isn’t doing). By the way, don’t be surprised if the White House moves to unveil its proposals by as early as next week. In other gun-related news, Vice President Biden today will meet “with gun violence victims’ groups and gun safety organizations,” the AP reports. And Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly announce the formation of Americans for Responsible Solutions to counter the National Rifle Association in an op-ed on gun control in USA Today. 

*** Bloomberg’s wandering (mayoral) eye: Speaking of Bloomberg, the New York Times runs yet another story suggesting that the outgoing New York mayor isn’t happy with the slate of candidates running to succeed him. “Mr. Bloomberg has mused about a Mayor Charles E. Schumer with the Democratic senator from New York, and teased Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a fellow billionaire media mogul, about a possible bid. The mayor’s advisers raised the idea of a run with Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and mayor of Philadelphia, and with Edward Skyler, Mr. Bloomberg’s former top deputy in City Hall, according to several people. The mayor’s most formal overture was delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps Mr. Bloomberg’s most quixotic choice for the job.” More: “The flirtations are unwelcome news for [apparent front-runner Christine] Quinn, who has been Mr. Bloomberg’s reliable partner in city government for years.” How much sway does Bloomberg really have though? Yes, he changed the rules to win a third term, but voters didn’t overwhelmingly send him back. He spent millions to win a race that should never been as close as it was. Candidates who decide to fall under Bloomberg’s spell about running ought to take a look at the 2009 results: Bloomberg didn’t crack 51%.

*** Chris Christie to deliver State of the State address: The Philly Inquirer reports: “Gov. Christie will focus Tuesday's State of the State speech on rebuilding towns damaged by Hurricane Sandy, a storm that pushed the well-exposed Republican governor further into the national spotlight and brought him bipartisan praise. But New Jersey Democrats were clear Monday that they hold him responsible for the economic doldrums the state had fallen into before Sandy: a 9.6 percent unemployment rate and the country's second-highest foreclosure rate.” 

*** RIP, Richard Ben Cramer. The obituary from the New York Times: “Richard Ben Cramer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and the author of “What It Takes,” a superbly detailed account of the 1988 presidential election considered among the finest books about American politics ever written, died in Baltimore on Monday night. He was 62.” On Twitter last night, it was striking to see so many political operatives and political journalists (your authors here included) note how inspirational “What It Takes” was to their careers. There are plenty of other folks offering great tributes to Cramer today. Ours is simple though: we believe there’s just one book every aspiring political journalist and operative ought to read if they want to know whether or not they are serious about this profession: it is “What It Takes.” It’s basically the unofficial textbook of Washington. If you haven’t read it, then you don’t get it. 

http://is.gd/ccxyrR">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">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Setting the stage for tomorrow’s VP debate: The pressure is on… Biden’s challenge vs. Ryan’s challenge… Today’s main event: Issa’s hearing on the attack in Libya… Romney’s statement on abortion… New NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of FL, OH, and VA to come out tomorrow morning… Team Obama’s tactical ad-buying advantage over Team Romney… This week’s 10 hottest advertising markets… And Obama’s new TV ad combining “47%” and Medicare.

Susan Walsh / AP

Vice President Joseph Biden speaks at the Mine Resistance Ambush Protected Program transition ceremony, Monday, Oct. 1, 2012.

*** The pressure is on: While vice-presidential debates typically don't have much bearing on the presidential contest, tomorrow night's Joe Biden-vs.-Paul Ryan showdown has put pressure on both sides. Team Obama NEEDS a strong performance from Biden to make up for last week and change the subject; another bad outing by a member of the ticket and the Democratic handwringing could turn into a full-fledged panic. Meanwhile, Team Romney needs a solid outing from Ryan to keep up the momentum. As we wrote last week, consider tomorrow night Game 2 of a baseball playoff series. After ace Romney beat ace Obama in Game 1, Democrats are looking for their No. 2 starter, Biden, to even the score. And Republicans are looking to go 2-0. That's what at stake Thursday, and that's why there's more pressure on Biden than on Ryan.

*** Biden’s challenge: Yet despite the pressure, anyone who watched Biden during the 2008 Democratic primary debates might consider him the favorite going into tomorrow night. Yes, he's susceptible to gaffes. Yes, he’s prone to hyperbole and verbal tics (“literally” he is). And yes, he hasn’t had much practice with TV interviews in the past few months (an Obama campaign OVER-correction from the gay-marriage news). But Biden is also a strong debater. And he has the same thing going for him that benefitted Dick Cheney against John Edwards eight years ago: gravitas. You might disagree with him on the issues, but Biden knows A LOT about national security and foreign affairs, about domestic policy, and about the judiciary. He’s the elder statesman facing off against a young (but also smart) opponent. Yet this is also a challenge for him. With the Obama campaign promising -- and with Democratic partisans hoping for -- an aggressive Biden, the vice president has to walk a fine line between being aggressive but also keeping that gravitas. That’s his challenge tomorrow night.

*** Ryan’s challenge: Meanwhile, Paul Ryan’s challenge is potentially more daunting: He has to defend BOTH his record and also Mitt Romney’s. And as we’ve seen over the past few weeks, Ryan’s record and budget plan have diverged from Romney’s. Examples: While Romney has criticized the health-care law’s $716 billion in Medicare savings, Ryan’s own budget assumes those same savings; while Romney maintained at last week’s debate that “I’m not going to cut education funding,” Ryan’s budget leads to long-term spending reductions in education; while Romney opposed the auto bailout, Ryan voted for it; while Romney has hit Obama for the looming defense cuts, Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 that contains them; and while Romney has blasted Obama for not embracing Simpson-Bowles, Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Also, Romney certainly lowered debate expectations for his running mate yesterday, when he told CNN: “This is, I think, Paul's first debate. I may be wrong. He may have done something in high school, I don't know.” Did Romney really say “high school”? Not exactly the best way to help the young Ryan look presidential (or vice-presidential).

*** Issa’s hearing on Libya: So the vice-presidential debate is tomorrow’s big political story. But what is shaping up to be today’s is Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. How concerned is the Obama administration about today’s hearing, which starts at noon ET? Concerned enough that the State Department -- after weeks of near-silence -- yesterday gave a tick-tock of what happened in Libya, and that tick-tock doesn’t even remotely match what UN Ambassador Susan Rice said in the days after the attack (that it was sparked by that anti-Islam video and that it wasn’t premeditated). Of course, the Obama administration has since revised its story, and it’s better to be late than never. But there’s no doubt that today’s hearing is going to be – at the very least -- a headache for the White House. An example: Today’s Washington Post report on the State Department concluding, back in July, “that the risk of violence to diplomats and other Americans in Libya was high and that the weak U.S.-backed government in Tripoli could do little about it.” Just askin’, but where is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why isn’t the administration sending her out to help explain what happened? Isn’t this her turf? Also, did the intelligence community really let Susan Rice go out FIVE DAYS after the attack and say what she said? They didn’t know FIVE DAYS LATER that there was not a single protest at all in Benghazi?

*** Romney’s statement on abortion: Speaking of headaches, this could be one for Mitt Romney. In an interview yesterday with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, Romney said: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” That statement could very well surprise many of his conservative supporters. And Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul emailed this response to National Review: “Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.” Saul gave this other statement to NBC News: "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president." We imagine that conservative commentators will be biting their tongues over Romney’s statement to the Des Moines Register. But it’s pretty remarkable – in today’s day and age – for a GOP presidential nominee to say there’s no abortion-related legislation that would become part of his agenda. By the way, you know Romney’s doing well when social conservatives bite their collective tongue.

*** New NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of FL, OH, VA: Just how big was Romney’s bounce after the debate? And did it continue beyond the immediate days afterward? We’ll be releasing new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls tomorrow morning that will give us a good answer. Before last week’s debate, we measured the contests of Florida (where it was Obama 47% Romney 46%), Ohio (Obama 51% Romney 43%), and Virginia (Obama 48% Romney 46%). Well, after the debate, we went back into the field in those same three states. Stay tuned for the results.

*** Team Obama’s tactical advantage over Team Romney: If Obama ends up winning the presidential contest, it could very well come down to this: Team Obama has a tactical advantage over Team Romney, and that’s especially true when it comes to advertising strategy. Politico has this example: “Voters in Columbus, Ohio, saw 30-second television ads for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney while watching ‘Wheel of Fortune’ on their CBS affiliate over three days in September. For Obama’s team, the order per spot cost $500. For Romney’s, the price tag on the order was more than five times steeper at $2,800 per ad.” What’s going on here? Politico explains, “Romney places his commercials on a week-to-week basis, rather than booking time well in advance, and typically pays more so that his ads don’t get preempted and to spare his campaign the hassle of haggling over time as prices rise.” Folks, this is the equivalent of an NFL team -- in terms of tactics and ad-buying strategy -- going up against a high school team. And here’s another example we’ve heard: For weeks, the Obama campaign has been hammering Romney on the “Big 10 Network.” Only until recently has the Romney campaign also decided to advertise on the channel, about five weeks AFTER the start of football season. In a close race, the little things matter.

*** This week’s 10 hottest markets: And by the way, here are this week’s 10 hottest advertising markets in the presidential contest (in terms of advertising points from Oct. 8-14):

1. Orlando, FL (Obama/1600, Romney/1600, ROF/775, Priorities/630, ROF/215)
2. Norfolk VA (Romney/1500, Obama/1300, ROF/1200, Priorities/350, NRA/300)
3. Cleveland, OH (Romney/1500, Obama/1500, AmCrossroads/1200, Priorities/400)
4. Denver, CO (Romney/1500, Obama/1500, AmCrossroads/1200, Priorities/300)
5. Toledo, OH (Romney/1500, Obama/1500, AmCrossroads/1100, Priorities/300, NRA/250)
6. Des Moines, IA (Romney/1500, Obama/1300, ROF/1000, Priorities/350, American Future Fund/360)
7. Roanoke, VA (Romney/1500, ROF/1500, Obama/750, Priorities/300, NRA/400)
8. Cedar Rapids, IA (Romney/1500, Obama/1300, ROF/780, American Future Fund/415, Priorities/400)
9. Green Bay, WI (Romney/1500, ROF/1500, Obama/500, Priorities/500, NRA/400)
10. Tampa, FL (Romney/1,500, Obama/1500, ROF/675, NRA/250)

*** Combing with “47%” and Medicare: And speaking of ads, the Obama campaign is out with a new TV spot that combines Romney’s “47%” remark with the Ryan budget plan for Medicare. The ad concludes, “You’re no victim. You earned your benefits. Don’t let Mitt Romney take them away.”

*** Polling update: Latest polls: Gallup switched its tracking poll to likely voters and now has Romney leading 49-47%. Among registered voters, Obama leads 49-46%. In the states: OH: CNN/ORC has Obama up 51-47% among likely voters and up 53-43% among registered voters; NH: WMUR/University of New Hampshire has Obama up 47-41%, but Obama lead has shrunk from 15 points in the poll 10 days ago; PA: Siena has Obama up 43-40%.

*** On the trail: Romney spends another day in Ohio, hitting a town hall (with Chris Christie) in Mt. Vernon at 11:35 am ET, a restaurant visit in Delaware at 2:25 pm, and a rally in Sidney at 6:45 pm.

Countdown to VP debate: 1 day
Countdown to 2^nd presidential debate: 6 days
Countdown to 3^rd presidential debate: 12 days
Countdown to Election Day: 27 days

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

After House Republicans over the weekend walked away from a tentative agreement to extend the payroll tax cut, Congress found itself locked in on a staring contest on Monday -- to see who would blink first.

The House is expected to vote Monday evening to reject legislation passed last week by the Senate to extend the expiring payroll tax cut for two months. That sets up the risk that, if no deal is reached by Dec. 31, taxes will go up on Jan. 1.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), speaking Monday morning at the Capitol, said that Republicans thought the two-month extension didn't provide enough certainty to the economy. 

"Americans are tired of Washington's short-term fixes and gimmicks, which is creating uncertainty for job creators in a time when millions of Americans are out of work," he said in a brief statement.

The speaker suggested that, instead, Republicans would vote to send their own year-long tax cut extension to conference, the formal process by which the House and Senate are supposed to resolve the differences between their bills. That process has been a relative rarity in this Congress, since most major agreements have been worked out typically through outside, technically informal talks. 

"I expect that the House will disagree with the Senate amendment and instead vote to formally go to conference, the formal process of which the House and Senate can resolve our differences between our two chambers and our two bills," Boehner said.

That move is a bid to shift political blame to the Democrats who control the Senate. The upper chamber adjourned until Jan. 23, reflecting their expectation that passing the two-month extension, which was approved with bipartisan support in the Senate, was all but a mere formality in the House.

Boehner had sought to sell the deal to rank-and-file members during a weekend conference call, according to Republicans familiar with the call, but was met by blowback from some conservative members. Some of those members flatly oppose extending the tax cut, while others are concerned that extending the tax cut for only two months would leave the GOP politically vulnerable, especially to criticism by President Obama during next month's State of the Union Address.

"I think it's time for Senate Democrat leaders to follow the president's example, put their vacations on hold, and work in a bipartisan manner to finish the nation's business," Boehner said.

If the House approves the conference report, it would mean that Democrats would be left with a choice between coming back to Washington, or standing by their existing deal, essentially telling the House GOP to take it or leave it.

"Speaker Boehner has two choices and only two. The first is to pass the bill, the bipartisan bill that the Senate passed 89 to 10," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the Senate Democratic messaging chief, said Monday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "The second is the middle class tax cut will lapse, and he will be responsible."

There are legislative pressure relief valves still available to Congress. One would involve leaders reaching an agreement on an item to pass the House, which would then be approved by unanimous consent -- a procedural move to pass a law without a formal vote, so long as no member objects.

For Congress, the year-end gridlock is a familiar theme. Lawmakers struggled to reach a deal to extend the expiring Bush tax cuts last December. (The deal they reached included the one year payroll tax cut -- the break that now Obama and Democrats have pushed to extend.) The year before, the Senate voted Christmas Eve to approve the president's health reform law.

But the stalling this week is also familiar because of its internal discord in the House. Boehner seemed to have balked because of the fractious House GOP majority, which is divided to an extent between an old guard with experience on Capitol Hill and the more tenacious, Tea Party-tinged freshman class elected just last fall.

Democrats have taken note of those divisions, and how it's affected their ability to negotiate with Boehner.

"Trying to negotiate with Speaker Boehner is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall," Schumer said this morning.